Oral Answers to Questions

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Homelessness Innovation Fund

Barbara Follett: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the homelessness innovation fund.

Yvette Cooper: The £2.2 million homelessness innovation fundis funding 19 projects to help more than 6,000 households and is part of a strategy to prevent homelessness under which homelessness acceptances have fallen by 17 per cent. over the past 12 months.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the fall in the number of homeless people, but does she agree that the best way to help 228 families who are currently homeless in Stevenage would be to build the 900 affordable homes in the proposed development to the west of the town? Will she do all that she can to ensure that that goes ahead?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is aware that I cannot comment on cases that are going through the planning process, but I can say that I think she is right: we need to build more homes across the board. We have an ageing and a growing population. We need the new homes and both social housing and shared equity schemes to support not only key workers, but the economy. That is why Shelter, the CBI and Unison are all supporting the campaign for more homes.

Sammy Wilson: A trawl through the regional papers this week has indicated that housing waiting lists have increased in the north-east by 22 per cent., in parts of the south of England by over 2,000 per cent. and in the midlands by over 100 per cent. Will the Minister outline some of the initiatives that the Government have taken to deal with homelessness in the United Kingdom? After eight years, why are we still finding waiting lists rising, rather than falling, despite the initiatives undertaken so far?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that demand for social housing is growing, just as demand for housing is growing across the board. That is why we have made it clear that we need to build new homes. We are funding a 50 per cent. increase in the number of new social houses over the next three years. We have already doubled new investment in social housing and doubled investment in repairs and refurbishment as well. We must recognise that we have had to deal with a disgraceful situation: the previous Government left us a £19 billion backlog in repairs and maintenance, which meant that 2 million families were deprived of decent homes to live in.

Margaret Moran: While welcoming the homelessness innovation fund, I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the prevention of homelessness is very important. Does she share my concern that only about three local authorities have used the housing benefit emergency fund, which is intended to prevent homelessness? What does she intend to do to restore that?

Yvette Cooper: I will certainly look further into the points that my hon. Friend makes because councils need to work hard to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. We have made important progress. I referred earlier to the fact that homelessness acceptances have dropped by 17 per cent. over the past 12 months. That has happened because of the £200 million programme to prevent homelessness and because of some innovative work that is being done by local authorities, often to do things as simple as providing people with help to get a rent deposit for a new home to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place.

Angela Watkinson: The problem with homelessness innovation funding is that, like so many of the Government's eye-catching initiatives, it is time-limited. What hope can the Minister offer for the future of projects such as Tomorrow's People in Southwark, which is successfully helping people out of the no home, no job-no job, no home trap that they fall into? Its funding ends in March.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that we need to continue to support programmes to prevent homelessness. That is why we have set out £200 million of investment in preventing homelessness; but, in the longer term, we must recognise the need to build new homes across the board. The Conservative party needs to realise that one of its leadership contenders is calling for a 500,000 cut in the building of new homes. That will not help to prevent homelessness; it will not help first-time buyers; and it will not help key workers either.

David Taylor: I note from the Minister's announcement on 2 November the welcome grant to three adjacent authorities—Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe—in the adjoining county of Nottinghamshire. Will she consider a similar approach in the county of Leicestershire, where the number of homeless people is not necessarily large, but any initiative in adjacent areas needs to be a minimum size to make it worth while, so North-West Leicestershire, Charnwood, Hinckley and Bosworth come to mind. Will she look at that because North-West Leicestershire has a successful homelessness project, but it would benefit from working with adjacent authorities?

Yvette Cooper: I will certainly examine my hon. Friend's proposal. It is helpful if local authorities work together across boundaries because that can make an important difference. It has helped to cut the number of families in bed and breakfast in the long term and the extent of rough sleeping.

Flood Plains

Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received relating to his planning guidance proposals for dealing with flood plains.

John Prescott: I have received representations to strengthen and clarify the present guidance, to extend the statutory role of the Environment Agency and to introduce call-in powers for planning applications in flood-risk areas. I intend to consult shortly on proposals for a new PPG25, which will include extending the agency's role and making a flood direction.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome warmly the Deputy Prime Minister's answer. He will be aware that under present law it is home owners who are responsible for knowing whether their homes are prone to flooding. Will he include in the revised planning guidance the requirement that it should be for developers to pass that knowledge on to home owners so that they can qualify for full insurance cover?

John Prescott: That seems to be a reasonable and sensible suggestion and I shall certainly consider it as we produce the draft. We intend to publish the draft shortly and hope to have the statement by summer 2006. That will make an important improvement by giving the Environment Agency greater influence on such directions. Indeed, I will also take extra powers to direct to deal with cases in which there is a dispute regarding the planning application going through a local authority and the Environment Agency.

Mark Todd: May I draw to the Deputy Prime Minister's attention the representations that I made on the last occasion that we considered PPG25? I urged the Environment Agency to have call-in powers then, so I hope that the proposal will meet with his approval on this occasion. May I urge him to take that step?

John Prescott: In the draft that we will publish shortly, I intend to introduce a statutory responsibility to consult the Environment Agency, not to avoid it. I think that it is involved in considering 50 per cent. of applications, but I need to make it a requirement that it considers all applications. However, I do not want to give the agency the sole power to have call-in rights because that should remain with local, democratically accountable planning committees. However, if there is a dispute involving the Environment Agency, I can call the matter in myself through the appropriate Government office.

Mark Francois: The Deputy Prime Minister will be well aware that flooding has been an emotive issue in Essex going right back to the great flood of 1953, when more than 100 Essex people were killed? Will he thus assure the House, and especially Essex Members, that the Government will not try to cram excessive numbers of houses into flood-plain areas in the Thames Gateway if the Environment Agency specifically recommends against that?

John Prescott: The proposals that I have mentioned will give the Environment Agency greater influence on matters involving flood-risk areas—we will certainly consider that. As I said, it will be the right of local authorities to make a decision on these matters. The Environment Agency can give advice and there will be a statutory requirement to consult it. However, I reserve the right to make a judgment at the end of the day.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that there are difficulties with the resources available. We have doubled them, but as he will know from a reply that I gave the last time that the House considered the matter, the Conservative party's proposal at the last election was to cut the money available for flood defences. In the election that is under way, perhaps he should ask the candidates whether they will continue with that policy, or change it.

Geraldine Smith: I recently met the Environment Agency and residents from Halton, Lancaster, who suffer from flooding from the River Lune. Lancashire county council will shortly put forward a planning application for a major road scheme that includes a bridge over the River Lune at that point, which could lead to increased flooding. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Environment Agency takes an interest in the planning application and, indeed, puts forward any objections that it might have?

John Prescott: I would be surprised if the agency has not done that, but I will make my own inquiries about the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

South West Regional Assembly

David Heathcoat-Amory: What plans he has to hold a referendum on the future of the South West regional assembly.

David Miliband: We have no plans for a referendum on the future of the South West regional assembly. The regional assembly is a voluntary body that is established by local authorities, businesses and community representatives in the region.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Minister aware of what a useless and time-wasting body the South West regional assembly is, with its totally artificial boundaries stretching for more than 150 miles from Penzance up to the north Gloucestershire boundary? Will he comment on reports from his Department about abolishing the historical and traditional shire counties of the south-west in pursuit of its mad regionalisation strategy? If he is contemplating such an act of political vandalism, will he put it to an early referendum in the south-west, which will have exactly the same result as that in the north-east last year when the proposal was rejected by 78 per cent?

David Miliband: If the right hon. Gentleman has a problem with the boundaries, he should speak to those who set them up in 1994—it was the Conservatives who set up Government offices. What the regional assemblies do is for the first time give local people, local councillors and local business people the chance to have a say—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Minister speak. They should not shout down the Minister. That is the last thing we want.

David Miliband: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your help.
	The 31 Conservative councillors who sit on the regional assembly would be surprised to hear Conservative Members say that they are wasting their time.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) called the regional assembly a useless organisation; I call it self-appointed and self-important. Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of what happens to the South West regional assembly, the fact that the police, fire and ambulance services are, in effect, being regionalised and that planning is now being done not by local authorities but by those self-appointed people in Exeter means that we are facing the regionalisation of the south-west and the abolition of the 1,000-year-old county of Wiltshire? Will he stand at the Dispatch Box and express his strong support for the county council structure in England, which has stood the test of time?

David Miliband: I was in Cornwall only the day before yesterday talking to the county council about how it uses its planning powers and works with the district councils, which also have planning powers. The ogre that the Conservatives are conjuring up is risible. The Labour Government are strongly committed to ensuring that the regional voice is that of local people, and that is what we are doing.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Minister clarify what new powers his Department proposes to give the assembly? Specifically, is it the intention to give the assembly powers over transport planning and control over the transport budget for the whole of the south-west?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the merger of the housing and planning functions, which has been set out clearly. Otherwise, the situation is as it has always been: the three main functions of the regional assemblies relate to planning, housing and the regional development agency and its scrutiny.

Caroline Spelman: The truth is that the Government are afraid to ask the people of the south-west whether they feel differently from people in other areas, who think that their regional assembly is a waste of their money. Can the Minister not see that the arrogant imposition of the regional agenda is a sure sign that the Government can get their way only by stealth or by force?

David Miliband: On the first point, an independent report by Arup has complimented the positive impact of the regional assembly. Secondly, the 31 Conservative councillors on the regional assembly are free to try to abolish the regional assembly, which is a voluntary body set up by the local council, and they are at perfect liberty to withdraw from that body tomorrow or the day after.

Affordable Housing

Andrew Love: What progress is being made towards his targets for the construction of new (a) shared ownership and (b) affordable rented homes.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Our policy "Sustainable Communities: Homes for All" sets out the Government's plans to deliver more affordable housing over the next five years. Measures include delivery of 75,000 social rented homes by 2008 and assisting more than 80,000 first-time buyers and key workers to achieve home ownership by 2010. Those targets include both new build and acquisition; there are no separate targets for the construction of new shared ownership or affordable rented homes.

Andrew Love: I congratulate the Government on their action on shared ownership. My concern is about affordable rented accommodation, especially in the capital. That is partly to do with construction cost inflation and the need for larger homes, but mainly it relates to the needs of the large number of people who are homeless or living in overcrowded accommodation. What action is my hon. Friend taking to deliver more resources for social rented homes in the capital?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government's success so far demonstrates that we will be successful with the capital as well. On homelessness targets, for example, we have ended the scandal of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We have taken two thirds of rough sleepers off the streets and between now and 2010 we will deal with the 2 million homes that were below the decency threshold, which were left to us in 1997. We have spent £5 billion over the past three years on socially affordable homes. We intend to spend £3.9 billion over the next three years. The share of London and the south-east in that capital project is considerable.

Philip Davies: Is the Minister aware that many people in Shipley are fed up to the back teeth with the Government setting more and more targets in planning matters? Will he therefore agree to give more powers back to local authorities so that they can set their own targets and not have Government-inspired targets forced upon them?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman says that he and his constituents are fed up with the setting of targets. The Government's programme in dealing with the 2 million homes that were below the decency threshold is clearly on track. I have quoted statistics relating to our dealing with the scandals of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and homelessness, and we are clearly on track. We issued new planning policy guidance earlier this year, which will help local authorities. We have consulted on one of the Kate Barker recommendations. The new planning policy statement will be responded to before the end of the year. That will help not only Shipley but the whole of the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Corbyn: Surely the Minister is well aware of the housing crisis that exists in London with the lack of rented accommodation through councils and housing associations. What is he prepared to do to enforce further building by local authorities and housing associations? Is he prepared to call in all major planning applications in London that do not meet the Mayor's target of 50 per cent. of all new housing being for people who are in desperate housing need rather than for those who can afford to buy luxury accommodation?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As my hon. Friend is aware, we are reviewing the powers and responsibilities of the Mayor. We shall be issuing a consultation document shortly, which will deal with housing matters as well as planning and other issues. We have been working closely both with the Mayor and London local authorities. I have mentioned the fact that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated money for housing, and considerable elements of it are going towards London; it will get its fair share. The arrangements between ourselves, the Mayor and London local authorities can only demonstrate that this approach will be successful for the capital.

Sarah Teather: A million and a half families are waiting for council housing, often living in appalling conditions while they wait. When will the Government give councils the financial freedom that they need to invest in building their own affordable rented housing?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We have doubled the investment in socially affordable homes since 1997, as I have mentioned. We are working as hard as we can. In the first instance, we have prioritised the 2 million homes below the decency threshold. We have introduced a step change in housing new build. We are working with the Housing Corporation to ensure that those in need of homes get them as soon as possible.
	We will be helping 100,000 people to get their homes by 2010, including those on the housing waiting list and those who come within the key workers strategy. We are clearly demonstrating that we are working hard to deal with the housing backlog. However, to deal with decades of no new build will take us time. We are on target for 1.1 million homes by 2016 in London and the south-east.

Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the future of neighbourhood renewal funding.

Phil Woolas: Decisions on the future of the neighbourhood renewal fund beyond 2008 have yet to be made. Resources beyond that point will be considered as part of the comprehensive spending review 2007.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend will know that under the old regime access to neighbourhood funding was used as a barrier to stop certain smaller metropolitan districts accessing other regeneration funding streams. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that in future, regeneration funding will not be used as a barrier in this way?

Phil Woolas: I am aware of this issue because the hon. Gentleman has, rightly, raised this point on several occasions on behalf of his constituents. I can give him some good news. Given that the Government measure deprivation now by sub-ward geographical areas, we can identify smaller pockets of poverty within better-off areas. This has meant that my hon. Friend's local authority has been allocated £3.8 million from the livability fund for 2006–09, and £1.6 million for the safer stronger communities fund for 2006–09.

Nadine Dorries: Given that many new homes are built near to airports and that millions of residents live under flight paths, Luton Town football club has said that the expansion plans for Luton airport effectively sterilise their plans to move to junction 10 of the M1. Is it correct in that assumption?

Phil Woolas: I do not have a clue whether it is correct or not. I do know, however, that Luton airport is expanding because of the Government's successful economic policies. The 10-year transport plan ensured that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister put in place Luton airport's rail and road links as part of the largest investment in public transport in this country since the Victorian era. On the specific point raised by the hon. Lady, however, I will ask for a letter to be drafted which I shall read and send to her.

Alistair Burt: The neighbourhood renewal fund is all about building communities up. How does that fit in with the Department's pathfinder project, which is literally about pulling down communities?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, as it gives me an opportunity to put on the record once again the fact that the housing market renewal fund, which addresses the problems of markets for housing in areas suffering from abandonment or poor housing, has enabled us to build new communities in the areas that have benefited from pathfinder schemes.

Thames Gateway

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on progress with the Thames Gateway proposals.

David Miliband: The Government set out our commitment to the Thames Gateway in our strategy document earlier this year. A total of £6 billion in the three years to 2006 will contribute towards key transport, education, health and other infrastructure. Both the London and Thurrock urban development corporations received planning powers in October 2005. In addition, Thurrock UDC has now developed a regeneration framework, which will be launched later this month.

Andrew MacKinlay: If I look irritated and disappointed it is not synthetic. We have had the Thurrock Urban Development Corporation for two years but there is very little to show for it. A different Minister answers questions about it every time, and I want to know when we will have housing units and tangible assets to show for our manifesto commitment to create that UDC. It has a lifespan of seven years—two years in, there is very little to show for it, so I want some movement now.

David Miliband: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being synthetic in his questions. I share his frustration that it has taken so long to get the Thurrock UDC up and running, but it is now in place, and we intend to hold it to the highest possible standards.

Bob Russell: With the Minister's enthusiasm for the Thames Gateway in south Essex, will he give us an assurance that that will not be at the expense of the Haven Gateway in north Essex?

David Miliband: The Thames Gateway will not be developed at the expense of one part of Essex or another. It is a coherent plan for the 40-mile stretch of land on both sides of the Thames to Southend, and we intend to drive it forward on both sides.

Derek Wyatt: My constituency has much to thank the Thames Gateway for, including nearly £200 million of inward investment. We have one last piece to put in the jigsaw—the Rushington link road. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell us when that decision will be made?

David Miliband: There is a long answer to that question, but the short answer is no, I am not in a position to do so. However, I will look into it.

Firefighters

Peter Bone: How many professional whole-time firefighters have been in service in (a) England and (b) Northamptonshire in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Between 1997 and 2004 the number of whole-time firefighters in England has fallen from 32,033 to 31,856. During this period the number of whole-time firefighters in Northamptonshire has risen from 286 to 311. Full details of the numbers in each year have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

Peter Bone: The regional incident response unit which would be deployed in the case of a terrorist attack is based at a fire station in my constituency. The previous Labour administration at county hall proposed to cut the number of firefighters at that station by 40 per cent. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that was a good idea?

Jim Fitzpatrick: If I may answer on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, what he thinks is a good idea is that the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 placed a responsibility for deployment, the number of fire appliances, resources and staff in the hands of local fire and rescue authorities and the chief fire officer, in consultation with colleagues and with local communities. That Act is clearly having an impact. The public service agreement targets set for the number of deaths and injuries in the UK indicate a successful reduction in 2003 and 2004 in England and in Northamptonshire. The fire service is modernising itself. It is becoming more resilient and repositioning itself to do more by way of prevention, not just responding to 999 calls. That is working.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael Weir: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 November.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Michael Weir: Does the Prime Minister intend to carry on regardless with his controversial legislation, or has he managed to locate the reverse gear that he once so famously claimed not to possess?

Tony Blair: We will carry on with the policies that, in Scotland, have delivered a strong economy, rising employment and falling unemployment, and massive additional investment in the national health service, education and law and order—all policies pursued by this Government and opposed by the Scottish national party.

Ian Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that for the 11th year in a row, the European Union budget has been found to be riddled with waste, fraud—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it—waste, fraud and corruption. Given that much of the money that is mis-spent, wasted or stolen comes from the British taxpayer, will the Prime Minister ensure that we give no more until these matters are tidied up? And, by the way, would he like to support Japan's bid for the—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: In respect of the EU budget, I know my hon. Friend will be familiar with the conclusions of the ECOFIN Council just a few days ago, when it set out some very interesting and persuasive conclusions as to how we could improve the EU budget. I have no doubt at all that in time to come they will have their effect. When that time is, we cannot yet be sure.

Michael Howard: I am sure the whole House will be disappointed by the Prime Minister's last answer. Can he tell us when he will publish his Green Paper on incapacity benefit reform?

Tony Blair: We will publish it in January.

Michael Howard: I am very grateful for that answer, but the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Hang on. The Prime Minister will understand if I am just a little sceptical, because in May he promised a Green Paper on incapacity benefit "before the summer recess". Then we were told it would arrive "shortly". In July we were told it was due in September. Last month we were promised it in the autumn. It is now the middle of November, so perhaps he will tell us why it has been delayed.

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that there has been a change of Minister at the head of the Department for Work and Pensions. It was a relatively well known change at the time. As a result of that, the Green Paper has been delayed and will be published in January. I hope very much that it will command support not just on the Government Benches, but from the Opposition. Action is necessary to cure the situation where, under the previous Government, of whom he was a member—[Interruption.] Oh yes, this is why we have the problem. Incapacity benefit was used to shield the true levels of unemployment. That is why the Labour Government believe in helping people off benefit and into work.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister is telling us that every time there is a new Secretary of State, it is back to square one. Since there have been four Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions in just over a year, it is not surprising that the Government are in such a mess.
	It is now nearly nine years since the Prime Minister promised that welfare reform would be a "key task" of the Labour Government, and it is six and a half years since he promised to reform incapacity benefit. The Minister for work says that the whole system has left people "languishing on benefit" and that so far the Government have done "sweet nothing" to deal with it. The Prime Minister's first choice as the man to sort out welfare reform says that the Government have "lost the plot" on welfare reform, extended dependency and
	"undermined the principle of work, mocked the idea of saving, and weighted public policy against people who tell the truth".
	Does the Prime Minister agree?

Tony Blair: I will tell him what I agree with: a Government whose welfare reform policy has moved more than 1 million people off benefit and into work. When he was Employment Secretary, he put up unemployment by 1 million, and his Government had 3 million unemployed. As a result of the new deal and welfare reforms, we spend £5 billion a year less on unemployment benefits. That is what I mean by off benefit and into work.

Michael Howard: I do not know where that answer leaves the Minister for work. The truth is that more people are economically inactive under this Government today than in 1997. While we are waiting for the Green Paper on incapacity benefit, will he tell us when he will publish his education Bill? And will he confirm that the House of Commons will have the opportunity to vote on the provisions outlined in his White Paper to give schools greater control over their admissions policies?

Tony Blair: Of course the House of Commons will have an opportunity to vote on the matter.
	If we can just return for a moment to his point on welfare, I am always delighted to debate unemployment with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is shortly to become unemployed. He is completely wrong—fewer people go on to incapacity benefit each year than in 1997. We have managed to do that because of policies such as the new deal and the working families tax credit, which he and his party opposed. Today, we have 2 million more people in work, more than 1 million of whom were specifically helped by the new deal. In the light of the success of the new deal, will he tell us whether he will drop the Tory opposition to it?

Michael Howard: I understand why the Prime Minister does not want to talk about education. We know what his Back Benchers think of his education policy: the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) has said that he is opposed to the Prime Minister's policies; the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) wants them neutered; and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is a member of the Education and Skills Committee, has described the plans in the White Paper as "bonkers". The Prime Minister has said that he will give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote on those matters, but will he confirm that he has still got the strength to face down his opponents on his Back Benches and his opponents in No. 11? And will he tell us when he will publish the Bill?

Tony Blair: I am delighted to debate education with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Conservative party—[Interruption.]—or anyone else. In the five years before we came to office, he was part of a Government who cut education funding per pupil. This Government have raised education funding to its highest level—we have got 30,000 more teachers and 100,000 more classroom assistants, and results at   11, at 16 and at 18 are all up. The education White Paper is important, because it will continue to give opportunities to children who do not currently have them. [Interruption.] It may be tough, but we will see it through, because since 1997 this is the party that has cared about education. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not shout down the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: Since 1997—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tony Blair: Since 1997, we have invested in education and reformed education, and the results are there to see in every single constituency. That is the programme that we will continue—a programme that has been opposed at every stage by the Conservatives, whose record on education meant that literally millions of children did not get the chance of the education that they deserved. Now, under this Government, they are getting that chance.

Michael Howard: Let me give the Prime Minister a word of advice. He and I are both on our way out. He does not have much time left, so he should not waste it abusing those who agree with him on this issue. Why does he not understand that he needs to spend every minute that he has got persuading those on his own Benches who disagree with him?

Tony Blair: First, let me thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his advice—I am sure that it is kindly meant. But let me give him some advice. When he wins an election, then he can give advice to someone who has won three.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is despicable for BAE Systems to close the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley, with a loss of 200 jobs? That puts at risk British service personnel in the Navy, the RAF and the Army, who require the very best ammunition. The initiators and box caps that are needed for the explosive to work will now have to be supplied from Switzerland and around the world because no one else in the UK is capable of doing so. That is unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to see whether we can get the decision reversed?

Tony Blair: BAE Systems Land Systems is responsible for the security of the supply of ammunition, and it has provided detailed plans to the Ministry of Defence on how it intends to achieve that if the Bridgwater and Chorley sites are closed. We are confident of its ability to fulfil its obligations. However, I understand my hon. Friend's point and I am happy to see him about it.

Charles Kennedy: Returning to the exchanges on social policy, does the Prime Minister recall that back in 1998 he said that the Child Support Agency had
	"lost the confidence of the public",
	was a "mess" and needed "urgent reform"? Today, for every pound that the CSA spends on its own bureaucracy, it gets only £1.85 to the children whom it is supposed to be there to help. How on earth can the Prime Minister defend such an appalling track record?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the amount of money that the Child Support Agency gets in is not substantially greater than the amount of money that it costs to administer it. That is different from the situation in 1997, when it was the other way round. However, I make no defence of the current situation. The CSA is in an extremely difficult position for a very simple reason, and it is as well that we are absolutely frank about that. It is the investigating agency, then it is the adjudicating agency, and then it is the enforcement agency. That is an extremely difficult situation, and the staff who have to work in the present system do so in conditions of very great difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman should remember why the CSA—[Interruption.] Incidentally, the Conservatives created it, and when we took over its administrative costs outweighed the amount of money that it got in.
	Having said that, the truth is that the situation at the CSA is extremely difficult and we are looking urgently at what the solutions might be. The problem is fundamental to the nature of the task that it is called upon to perform.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister tells the House that he is looking urgently at the situation. However, he was looking urgently at it as Prime Minister seven years ago. What has happened in the intervening period? In the past four years, there have been 35,000 cases of maladministration and there is now a backlog of 350,000 cases. Unpaid maintenance now stands at £1.7 billion. What on earth can the Prime Minister mean by "urgently" in the light of such a disgraceful record?

Tony Blair: We legislated on this before to simplify the procedure involved, and that has reduced the costs quite considerably. However, the basic problem remains. I am not disputing the difficulties; indeed, I agree that they exist. Let me make a point that emphasises those difficulties. As the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred show, the vast majority of the compensation payments—33,000 of the 35,000—were for amounts less than £1,000—

Charles Kennedy: That is still a lot of money.

Tony Blair: Of course it is, but it is extremely difficult to make this operation cost-effective when the agency is the investigating, adjudicating and enforcing authority. Furthermore, in the majority of cases that the agency deals with, the child concerned is the product neither of a married relationship nor of a stable partnership. All I am saying is that the task that we are asking the agency to perform is an extremely difficult one—[Hon. Members: "What are you going to do about it?"] I was about to say that we cannot discuss sensibly the Child Support Agency unless we are prepared to look urgently at the fundamental nature of the task that it performs and at the reasons why it was set up in the first place. For reasons that I understand, the previous Conservative Government established the agency to ensure that parents carried out their obligations to their children. The truth is that the agency is not properly suited to carry out that task.

Desmond Turner: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that some of his recent comments on climate change have led to allegations that his resolve on that subject is weakening. I hope that he will be able to refute those allegations. Does he agree that, as far as our economic future is concerned, we cannot afford not to tackle climate change effectively?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am absolutely in favour not only of the Kyoto treaty, which this Government helped to bring about, but of a framework that includes binding targets. The Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, however, and I am determined to ensure that any future arrangements involve the United States, India and China. Unless all those countries are involved, whatever agreement the rest of the world comes to will not be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Julian Brazier: The House knows the burden placed on young soldiers and their commanders when we send them into combat. Will the Prime Minister join Field Marshal Inge in condemning the activities of British lawyers who are hawking no-win, no-fee arrangements around Iraq, and promising taxpayers' money to those who will bear witness against British soldiers? We all accept that prosecutions have always been brought, rightly, against British soldiers when there has been genuine wrongdoing, but will the Prime Minister tell the House why he has refused to give our armed forces the protection that the French and the Americans have given to theirs against the more unreasonable aspects of the new so-called war crimes treaty?

Tony Blair: First, that is not the basis on which people are being prosecuted, and the Army prosecuting authority—I am pleased to make this very clear—has the sole responsibility to decide on prosecution or otherwise. I understand that one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends was saying the other day that either I or one of the Ministers had something to do with the initiation of particular prosecutions. Let me make it quite clear that that is completely untrue. The prosecutions are initiated by the Army prosecuting authority, not by Ministers.
	Secondly, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: I yield to nobody in my support for our armed forces in what they have done—in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in Bosnia, in Sierra Leone. They have done a magnificent job, and I think that the whole House should be proud, as should the country, of the contribution they made. Any wrongdoing that ever occurs comes, I am quite sure, from a very small minority—totally unrepresentative of the broad mass of the British armed forces. Time and again, I, like Prime Ministers before me, have had cause to be grateful to them.

Meg Hillier: Hackney council has introduced a number of zones in my constituency where street drinking is banned. It has also declared a saturation zone, working with residents and businesses, where licensed premises are not just tolerated, but encouraged. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of good practice, thanks to the local control of licensing hours that the Government have introduced?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is indeed an example of how the new licensing laws allow local residents and the local police to take action against the minority who are rowdy or are causing trouble in areas while allowing the majority the freedom that they should have. I was surprised to see Opposition Members all voting against the liberalisation of licensing laws yesterday, when they did not when they had the opportunity to do so on the Bill. A certain Member, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), once wrote:
	"When at the Home Office as a special adviser in the early 1990s, I wrote endless papers about scrapping our ludicrous laws."
	So, I rather fear that the opportunism that has been a characteristic of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is about to be transferred to his successor.

Graham Stuart: More than 90 community hospitals, including Hornsea and Withernsea hospitals in my constituency, are threatened with cuts or closure. In recognition of that, Members from across the House yesterday became patrons of CHANT—Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together. Will the Prime Minister show his commitment to community hospitals by joining them in becoming a patron of CHANT?

Tony Blair: The configuration of community hospital services is, ultimately, a local decision and a matter for the primary care trust. We have committed about £100 million to build, rebuild and furbish more than 50 such hospitals over the next five years. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in others, there has been a massive increase in health service spending, but how that is used is best decided by PCTs.

Mark Todd: Derbyshire police has been particularly successful in driving down crime in my area this year—by about 10 per cent. What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me and other residents that proposals to merge Derbyshire police with other police authorities in the east midlands will assist in that endeavour rather than distract the force from further achievement?

Tony Blair: That is exactly the point that has to be gone into during the consultation. There is no point in carrying out such mergers unless they increase operational efficiency, and that has to be decided case by case. As to the reason we are initiating this, obviously many people believe that such mergers will help operational efficiency, but that has to be tested in the consultation that is conducted in my hon. Friend's area as in others. We will obviously look carefully at the results of that consultation.

Edward Vaizey: We have excellent doctors and nurses working in the national health service in Oxfordshire, but they are facing ward closures and redundancies. Everyone in our county agrees that the £35 million deficit has been caused by demonstrably unfair funding for Oxfordshire, health inflation and bureaucratic reorganisation. As The Oxford Times—a newspaper I know the Prime Minister read avidly as a student—has said, "Ministers should not be"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can read The Oxford Times at his leisure.

Tony Blair: It is not only that the nurses and doctors are excellent in the hon. Gentleman's area; there are many more of them under this Government. In fact, to be precise there are 2,700 more nurses, 390 more consultants and 516 more doctors.
	Also, the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust has £166 million of funding, which is an increase of 6.5 per cent. on the previous year. It is true that there is a deficit in the South West Oxfordshire PCT. Last year, three organisations, of which it was one, were responsible for the £11.5 million deficit in that area, which was offset against surpluses in the remaining seven organisations. However much money is put into the NHS, there must be proper financial control. With the massive additional sums of money going into our health service, it is important that that money is properly used. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman agreed with that.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend might not be aware that Firstbus in South Yorkshire has recently increased fares by more than 15 per cent. in some cases. That is the fourth fare increase in 12 months. Fare increases, together with regular cuts in services, have reduced passenger numbers in South Yorkshire by 30 per cent. over the past 10 years. Does he now agree that it is time to end the deregulation introduced by the Conservative party, and to move to the sort of regulatory regime for public transport that has been so successful in increasing passenger numbers in London?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend will know, we keep the matter under review. As I said earlier, however, whatever system of regulation there is, there will obviously be a limit on the resources available.

Jeremy Browne: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Somerset the Government are amalgamating our four NHS primary care trusts, regionalising our fire control centre and creating a huge new merged police force? Is not the inescapable conclusion that both in the overall direction of policy and their overall character traits, the Government are now increasingly centralised, less accountable, more remote and more and more out of touch?

Tony Blair: I think that the hon. Gentleman could have rehearsed that one a bit longer. There will be, and always have been, reorganisations of services to achieve the best operational efficiency. I cannot comment on the reorganisations in his area, although I am happy to write to him and do so. It is not something that this Government alone have introduced—all Governments attempt to achieve the greatest efficiency in the way that services are configured. We should never say that the configuration at one particular time must exist for all time.

Joan Walley: Can I tell the Prime Minister that coal health compensation payments to ex-miners in former coalfields such as north Staffordshire are making a real difference to their quality of life? There is growing anger and impatience, however, because miners who worked for small mines, which were licensed by the Coal Board, are not getting their pay-outs. Will he look into that, and if need be, will he change the rules?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on this matter. I agree that there has been positive progress on the coal health schemes. About £1.8 million a day is being paid out, and in her constituency, for example, payments have amounted to almost £12 million. I understand, however, that of the nearly 600,000 lung disease claims, about 2,600 involve small mines, and the Department of Trade and Industry has now agreed with the representatives of both the former British Coal miners and the independent small mines how those claims will be processed. They are now trying to increase the number of offers, which, I think, will run at about 50 a month. Some 760 have already been settled, and I will certainly look into how they can be processed faster.

Patrick Mercer: The Prime Minister will be only too painfully aware that recently in Iraq, 10 British soldiers have been murdered by roadside bombs. Our ambassador to Baghdad suggests that those devices have come from Iran. Our major-general in the Basra area has asked for extra troops to seal the border and save British lives. The Government have refused that request. Given the Prime Minister's earlier comments about supporting our servicemen to the nth degree, how can he make that stand up?

Tony Blair: Obviously, we want to do, and must do, everything that is necessary to protect our troops in Basra. In our regular discussions with the armed forces about the numbers of troops that we have in Iraq, this issue arises, but it is not one that has led us or, as far as I am aware, the armed forces to believe that we need to increase the numbers of troops there. Of course we keep that constantly under review, but the most important way of protecting people down south and elsewhere is to build up the capability of the Iraqi forces themselves. In many parts of the south they are now in control of the policing of some areas, and ensuring that the security concerns of the local population and our own forces are dealt with.
	As for the other things that we need to do, we work closely with the local elected representatives. I do not believe, however, that the need to protect the border would be best met in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Jim Dobbin: Following the demolition of the former Turner and Newall site, 3,500 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated material is to be transferred from the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) through the length of my constituency, to be dumped in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive must at all costs protect the people of those three communities?

Tony Blair: I am looking around the Chamber, but I am afraid I am not getting a great deal of help. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. I am not getting a great deal of help from the Opposition either.
	Of course the Health and Safety Executive must abideby the rules. I shall have to look into the specific   points raised by my hon. Friend, but I am surethat the HSE will act according to the obligations   with which it is charged. If I learn anything   to the contrary, I will contact my hon. Friend urgently.

Income Tax (Earnings Exemption for Persons Living in Poverty) (No. 2)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that income tax be not chargeable on the earnings of persons living in poverty.
	The Bill is designed to alleviate poverty for some of the lowest-paid in our society. Those who earn less that 45 per cent. of the median of annual earnings, as defined by the Office for National Statistics, are struggling to survive on the equivalent of less than the minimum wage for working a 40-hour week. That group includes far too many of our youngest employees and elderly pensioners with a small amount of savings. I believe that there is a moral injustice in charging those people income tax on their meagre wages.
	I propose to abolish income tax permanently for that group, which, on the basis of current figures, includes all whose income is £10,000 a year or less. Their income tax bills would be reduced by about £872 per year, which would offer a considerable fillip to their wages and, above all, provide an incentive to work and improve their standard of living.
	To enhance those proposals, I also suggest the adoption of a system whereby those earning between £10,000 and £15,000 a year can be phased into the existing tax system through a £1 decrease in their new tax allowance for every additional £1 that they earn. Those earning between £10,000 and £15,000 would pay half the income tax that they pay now, while those earning more than £15,000 would be taxed according to the existing system. Although the means of introducing that method of easing low earners back into the existing income tax system would fall beyond the remit of my Bill, I believe that it would facilitate the implementation of my proposals.
	The Conservative party has a proud record of helping those who are most disadvantaged in society. We are the only political party in Britain that has always offered the poorest in society the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty and make a better life for themselves, their families and their communities. Indeed, the Conservative who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1993 and 1997 is the only current Member of this House who has made a real reduction in income tax—a reduction of 2p in the pound—that has not been accompanied by an increase in national insurance contributions, more than compensating for the reduction.
	Moreover, when the Conservative party was in office between 1990 and 1997, we helped 8.2 million of the poorest people on the basic rate of income tax by removing them from the system. That trend has, sadly, been reversed, and since 1997 6.2 million of our poorest people have been dragged back into the system—a striking contradiction to the principle of the Rooker-Wise amendment introduced by the Labour party in 1977. Together, we must all foster a tax system that offers opportunity rather than entrapment. We must not construct a system that dictates that the poor are to be permanently trapped at the bottom of the income league.
	We all know about the difficulties that have been faced by hard-working families. The failing tax credit system has led to wrongful payments to 1.9 million of our poorest families and to thousands of people being financially crippled because of administrative error—and all at a cost of £475 million a year.
	My Bill aims to help to reverse that trend by taking 6.6 million of our lowest paid workers out of the income tax system altogether, and reducing the income tax burden for a further 6.1 million, thus helping a total of nearly 13 million people. That would result in more than £5 billion being redirected from the Government coffers to the pockets of our lowest paid workers. I believe that, because of the balancing increases in public revenues, which I will set out in a moment, it should be possible to achieve that without serious reductions in funding for our public services.
	Office for National Statistics figures show that we have an economy with only three quarters of those of working age actually in work. Moreover, there are some 625,000 employment vacancies, and there are more than 2 million people out of work who say that they would like to be in work. By allowing people to keep more of their own earnings, we will reduce welfare costs. Depending on the number of people who are encouraged back into work, that saving could be as much as £2.5 billion.
	My proposals would make tax avoidance less profitable and so help the Government to tackle the black market and to improve the health and safety issues facing unregistered workers. Hopefully, a tragedy of the kind we saw at Morecambe bay would never occur again.
	Even Whitehall would make savings, as the Inland Revenue would not have to deal with the complex tax affairs of the low paid, who often change jobs, do a lot of casual work and drop in and out of employment. Sometimes, they work in the black economy. Those macro-economic benefits are of course important, but my Bill is designed, first and foremost, to help the poorest members of our work force, who will, for example, be able to choose to save more of their own earnings to counter the looming pensions crisis that so many of my constituents are having to struggle with, or to keep more of their wages so that they can start to pay off personal debts. Unsecured debt has spiralled to a terrifying average of £7,650 per household.
	Moreover, we will be able to reverse some of the disgraceful structural trends that have occurred in the past few years. Personal income tax allowances for the lower paid have failed to increase in line with inflation, contrary to the Rooker-Wise amendment. The poorest 10 per cent. of people in Britain have to give some 90 per cent. of their income to the Government, before credits, benefits and other allowances are provided. Above all, as the Department for Work and Pensions recently stated, the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. of households after tax and benefits have fallen in each year since 2001.
	It is vital to remember that, by giving the poorest workers the opportunity to keep more of their hard-won income, we would be allowing them to spend their wages as they wish, resulting in increased indirect revenues that will help us to balance the loss of income tax revenues. There is a strong case that my reforms could be undertaken without significant reductions in Government revenue, due to the increase in indirect revenues, the decrease in welfare costs as people move into work, the increase in national insurance revenues, the savings in Government bureaucracy and the tackling of tax-avoidance problems. Fundamentally, the reforms should result in increased growth and vibrancy of the economy.
	The Bill is designed to take people living in poverty permanently out of the income tax system. It should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Helping our lowest-paid workers is not a party political issue—it is a moral good. This is a practicable proposal and a modern manifestation of the proud Conservative tradition of offering opportunity to all.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Edward Leigh, Nick Herbert, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Andrew Selous, Peter Luff, Sir George Young and Mr. David Curry.

Income Tax (Earnings Exemption for Persons Living in Poverty) (No. 2)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown accordingly presented a Bill to provide that income tax be not chargeable on the earnings of persons living in poverty: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 89].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

[Relevant documents: The Second Report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, on Asylum and Immigration Appeals, HC 211, the Fifth Report of the Committee, Session 2004–05, on Legal Aid: Asylum Appeals, HC 276, and the Government's responses thereto, Cm 6597and Cm 6236.]
	As amended in the Standing Committee, considered

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Over-staying Leave Pending Appeal

'(1)   A person does not commit an offence under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (over-staying leave to enter or remain) by virtue only of remaining in the United Kingdom at a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied.
	(2)   Condition 1 is that—
	(a)   the person's leave has been curtailed, or
	(b)   his application for variation of leave has been refused.
	(3)   Condition 2 is that a decision has been made to remove the person from the United Kingdom.
	(4)   Condition 3 is that—
	(a)   the person could bring an appeal against that decision while in the United Kingdom by virtue of sections 82(2)(g) and 92(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (appeals) (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), or
	(b)   the person has brought an appeal against that decision while in the United Kingdom by virtue of those sections and the appeal is pending.
	(5)   In subsection (4)(b) "pending" has the meaning given by section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (c) to new clause 1, in line 4, at end insert—
	'(   )   At a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied a person's leave to enter or remain is extended by virtue of this section save that such extension shall not prevent a decision to remove the person from the United Kingdom being made.'.
	Amendment (a) to new clause 1, in line 8, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment (d) to new clause 1, in line 8, after 'been', insert ', or could be'.
	Amendment (b) to new clause 1, in line 10, leave out '3' and insert '2'.
	Amendment (e) to new clause 1, in line 11, at beginning insert
	'where a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom has been made'.
	Amendment (f) to new clause 1, in line 11, leave out from 'decision' to '(appeals)' in line 13.
	New clause 5—Entry Clearance Applications—
	"90   Entry clearance
	(1)   A person may not appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance as a visitor unless the application was made for the purpose of visiting a member of the applicant's family.
	(2)   In subsection (1) the reference to a member of the applicant's family shall be construed in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(3)   Regulations made under subsection (2) may in particular
	(a)   define 'member of the applicant's family" for the purposes of this section;
	(b)   make provision by reference to the duration of two individuals' residence together;
	(c)   confer a discretion.
	(4)   A person may not appeal under section 82(1) against refusal of entry clearance as a student if the application is for entry clearance to follow a course of study and—
	(a)   the course of study for which he has been accepted will not last more than six months,
	(b)   he has not been accepted for a course, or
	(c)   the course of study for which he has been accepted is not at a UK education institution on the approved register.
	(5)   Where a person has no right of appeal under subsections (1) or (4) above, a person applying for entry clearance as a dependant on his application shall have no right of appeal.
	(6)   Nothing in this section prevents the bringing of an appeal on either or both of the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b), (c) and (g)".'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 3, leave out Clause 1.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 16 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(   )   the leave was granted to a person to follow a course of study at a UK education institution on the approved register; or'.
	Amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 16 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(   )   the leave was granted to a person who had applied for but not been given asylum or humanitarian protection as an unaccompanied minor but had been granted exceptional or discretionary leave to enter or remain'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 21 [Clause 1], at end insert—
	'(fc)   Variation of, or refusal to vary, a person's limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if—
	(i)   the leave was granted to a person to follow a course of study at a UK education institution on the approved register; and
	(ii)   the result of the variation or refusal taking effect is that the person is unable to—
	(a)   complete that course of study,
	(b)   attend or undertake any event or activity in connection with that course of study, or
	(c)   move from that course of study to another course of study at the same or another institution.'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 31 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'(   )   An appeal under subsection (2) may be brought in the United Kingdom.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 36, leave out Clause 4.
	Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29.

Tony McNulty: I preface my remarks to this group of amending provisions by alluding to what happened in Committee. We had a very fruitful and productive series of sittings, with engaging debate and useful points being made by Members on both sides. On the many occasions—although, I think, not all— when I said that I would look further into particular matters, I have sought to do so and have tabled amending provisions, where appropriate. New clause 1 is the first example.
	Much disquiet and concern was expressed in Committee about the gap between the notification of someone's leave coming to an end or being curtailed for whatever reason and the one and only time permitted under the Bill to appeal against removal initially and then all the other elements leading up to the removal. Members of the Committee were concerned, as I said, because they did not want people to be committing an immigration offence if they stayed in the UK while bringing an in-time appeal against a removal decision. That was an entirely fair point and new clause 1 was tabled in the light of those genuine concerns expressed by Opposition Members in Committee. As I said, that was characteristic of the sensible and constructive manner in which the Committee's work was conducted. I am pleased to move new clause 1 in response.
	It is entirely a matter for the House authorities, but, under the broad heading of appeals, a significant number of amending provisions and amendments to them are appended that embrace a number of concerns. It is my intention—I believe that it is in order, Mr. Speaker—formally to speak to new clause 1 and then, in the fullness of time, to listen to all the concerns expressed in the debate, including the other amendments, and to respond appropriately to them. I prefer to do that, rather than pre-empt discussion by giving my view on every aspect of every other amendment in the group at this stage of our deliberations.
	To finish speaking to new clause 1, where a person has no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, a decision can be made that they should be removed from the country. By virtue of section 82(2)(g) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that is an immigration decision, which gives rise to a right of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
	If the appellant has made an asylum or human rights claim while in the UK, or argues that removal would result in a breach of their rights under EU law, that appeal can be brought prior to their removal from the UK. In all other cases, any right of appeal against a decision to remove can be exercised only once the appellant has left the country.
	The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that a person who has complied with the term of their leave—that is, who has made an unsuccessful application for further leave in time, or who has existing leave curtailed—is not liable to prosecution under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Act 1971 as an overstayer during any period in which they can bring an in-country appeal against a decision to remove them from the UK, or in which such an appeal was pending.
	As I said in Committee, it is not our intention to force people who have observed the conditions of their leave to risk criminal sanction during their appeal. The new clause fits with the principle that there should be a "soft-touch, light-touch" compliance regime for those who comply with our system of immigration control, but far stricter enforcement for those who abuse it.
	The new clause fills a gap in the original Bill about which legitimate concerns were expressed. In Committee, I undertook to explore whether we needed to introduce further proposals and, if so, whether existing rules would provide a suitable vehicle or could be modified to do so. I also undertook to consider whether new legislation was needed. After much thought and reflection, we believe that it is on balance right and appropriate to include these provisions in the Bill. That is the intention behind Government new clause 1.
	I repeat that I shall return to the Dispatch Box when other hon. Members have had a chance to state their case in respect of the new clause and the other amendments that are grouped with it, quite fairly, under the broad heading of "Appeals".

Cheryl Gillan: First, I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has introduced the debate on the new clause. We had extremely valuable discussions in Committee, and we have few disputes about large portions of the Bill, but the Minister knows that some matters remain contentious, both in the House and among a wider audience.
	Secondly, this group of new clauses and amendments covers the whole of the first part of the Bill. That amounts to 13 clauses, so I have a lot of ground to cover in my speech. I hope that colleagues will forgive me for boring them to death over a period of time—

Tony McNulty: Surely not.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister says, "Surely not," but I look forward to hearing his views on the other amendments. I feel that he has an open mind on these matters, and that he may be moved to accept some of the proposals.
	As we know, this part of the Bill removes the right of in-country appeal for leave to remain or for variation of leave from all applicants, other than those in the categories covered by clause 1(4). That means, for example, that international students applying for leave to remain or to vary their leave will have no right of appeal against refusal.
	The Government intend that such applicants should have one right of appeal against a subsequent decision to remove them from the UK, but that appeal will be exercisable only outside the UK. Another problem noted in Committee is that applicants whose leave expires while they are awaiting a decision on a leave-to-remain application will become illegal overstayers, once they are told that their application has been unsuccessful.
	All hon. Members will know that the consequences of overstaying illegally are serious. People in that position lose the right to work or study, and their access to benefits such as primary health care. On their way out of the UK, their passports are likely to be stamped with a record of the fact that they had no legal right to be in the UK. That would affect the likelihood of those people getting visas in future.
	One feature of the Bill's passage through the House so far has been that a wide range of bodies have raised grave concerns about the Government's intention to remove people's rights of appeal in respect of refused entry clearance or leave-to-remain applications. Universities UK, the Association of Colleges, the National Union of Students and the Council for International Education have expressed concern about the impact of the measures on international students. I regret that their fears were not allayed by the Minister in Committee. In addition, as the Minister is aware, we have received excellent advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has briefed Members on both sides of the House. The association has raised serious concerns over this part of the Bill, which I hope to reflect in some of my remarks.
	To set my remarks in context, I remind the House of   some basic statistics. In 2004, about 228,035 applications were made for leave to remain, of which 149,250—about 66 per cent.—were from international students. About 30 per cent., which is a large number, had to apply for a variation or extension of their leave to remain during their time in the UK. A significant number of people could be affected by the provisions.
	The net effect of the first 11 clauses is to make anyone who is refused an extension of leave with right of appeal under the amended section 88(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 an overstayer. In fact, it is a double blow, as the applicant is not only refused further leave but precipitately finds themselves categorised as an overstayer. As the Minister admitted in Committee, the individual is, in effect, criminalised and can be prosecuted and charged with the criminal offence of breaching immigration control. To be fair, I concur that that is a rare occurrence but, although I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister introduced new clause 1, there are other problems for the overstayer, which the Minister appeared to acknowledge in Committee and that are not rare. For example, an overstayer is immediately denied the right to work and their employer could be liable to prosecution, too. The overstayer is denied the right to access benefits and the right to study, and some rights of access to the health service. They could also be liable to detention.
	The new clause does not cover those points at all. Far from clarifying the situation, as we expected after Committee, it merely addresses the question of the criminal offence and does so in a way that offers only a fairly loose promise that the Government will not prosecute in the future. It certainly does not address the range of difficulties facing the overstayer, or the issues we raised in Committee. The Minister must forgive me, but I feel that he has led us—or certainly me—down the garden path a little. I was heartened by what I thought was his real intention to amend the Bill—[Interruption.] He protests, but he certainly gave a greater impression that he would be more flexible than has proved to be the reality.
	In the second sitting of the Committee, the Minister said:
	"There is confusion about people's status at the tail end of the decision-making process, after the decision to remove, and during the subsequent appeal against removal. I fully accept that."
	He continued:
	"Let me be clear: if we need to amend the primary legislation in the Bill to clarify section 24(1)(b) of the 1971 Act, I shall. Equally, if I need to clarify the same point in the immigration rules in relation to the gap between a final decision and the commencement of the appeal process, I shall."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 October 2005; c. 60–62.]
	Sadly, the Minister's comments are not reflected in his amendments and some confusion remains.
	Later in our Committee proceedings, the Minister was still pandering to our requests and reinforced the Committee's belief that he would grapple with the problem and present a solution. He said:
	"The only issue . . . is the difference and gap between the cancellation of leave and removal. I made it clear during the debate on clause 1 on appeals that we would examine that gap and not leave people in limbo. I am happy to give that assurance again in terms of any cancellation of leave."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 October 2005; c. 245.]
	I am certainly not the only one to be disappointed by the proposal in new clause 1—

Evan Harris: rose—

Cheryl Gillan: We worked quite closely with the Liberal Democrats and I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Evan Harris: I certainly endorse the hon. Lady's remarks; she saves me from having to repeat those points later. As she knows, we have tabled amendments to the new clause to try to tease out some of the issues and we hope that the Minister will explain, in answer to her questions and ours, how he will deal with the problems other than criminalisation of the overstayer.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What is interesting about the group of amendments is that we have all tried to approach the matter from different angles, to move the Minister in the direction we thought he was taking in Committee. He will have a bit of work to do when he responds to both the hon. Gentleman and me.
	The Immigration Law Practitioners Association looked at the issue and has set out one element of our disappointment. The association believes that new clause 1 does not even rectify the problem in the limited context of the criminal offence. The Minister acknowledged that there is a long time between refusal of leave and the making of removal decisions. The effect of the new clause is to suspend the chance of prosecution until the appeal is finally determined. However, subsection (3) means that during the time between refusal of leave and the removal decision there is no protection from criminal prosecution—certainly as I read it. The Minister's defence could be that it is not usual to prosecute, but if that is his line the provision looks more like window dressing than real movement.
	There is further confusion. People with out-of-country appeals, even if they rapidly leave the UK, could have applications prejudiced by risk of endorsement as an overstayer. Under the immigration rules, leave to enter would normally be refused if the time limits on previous entries had failed to be observed, yet that person has no control over whether he overstays; he is simply in the hands of the Home Office and the timing of its decisions, with no redress. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issues raised by new clause 1 on the position of overstayers, which is still confusing, especially in respect of their entitlements.
	I want to move on to some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me. As I pointed out earlier, about 30 per cent. of international students—about 45,000—apply for variation or extension to their leave. Common reasons for those applications, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, are to complete PhD studies, to   transfer courses from one university or college to another, to attend graduation ceremonies or even to attend vivas. With the amendments, I am trying to probe the Government to find out whether they will consider the position of students in those catch-22 situations.
	The educational world is seriously concerned, and so am I. I hope that the Minister agrees that, over several years, there has been broad cross-party support for the principle that where a subjective decision-making process could lead to mistakes there should be a right of appeal. That is really not an excessive request in the United Kingdom. However, under the legislation, thousands of individuals could be left on the wrong side of the law through no fault of their own, by becoming illegal overstayers the moment that the decision to refuse their application has been made.
	Concern in the education sector has been driven by an awareness of the reputational damage that such a change could have on the UK as a study destination. Already, as we discussed in Committee, a raft of recent measures, which includes substantial increases in fees for leave-to-remain applications and initial visas, has had an impact—possibly damaging—on international student recruitment. There is growing evidence to suggest that international students are beginning to choose to study elsewhere.

Tony McNulty: I appreciate that it is early days in the application process, but what the hon. Lady has just said is entirely wrong. Early signs are that international student applications in this country are up 5 per cent., not that they are appreciably down or that there is a trend downwards. That is simply a matter of fact from Universities UK.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister needs to consider this in relative terms. Although he believes that applications are up 5 per cent., I suggest that he look at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's report on the UK's market share in international student recruitment, which shows that the number is down by 3 per cent., although I agree that that covers the period since 1999. Acceptances for international undergraduates through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service from key markets are also down this year in certain areas—by 22.5 per cent. for China, by 18.6 per cent. for Singapore, and by 7.9 per cent. for Malaysia. Those statistics have been provided by Universities UK.
	Some 40 per cent. of vice-chancellors who responded to a Universities UK survey in December last year reported that they had seen a fall or no increase in the number of international student enrolments in the last academic year, and 50 per cent. said that they had missed their targets for international student recruitment. According to a snapshot survey by Universities UK, many institutions report a decline in international student enrolments for entry in 2005 compared with 2004. That decline inevitably means heavy financial losses for institutions—some universities report expected losses of between £1 million and £3 million this year.
	UK Visas reports a decline in student visa applications in a number of key posts, including Beijing, Islamabad, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Chennai. In Beijing, student visa applications are down by 38 per cent. and in Islamabad by about 37 per cent. In the further education sector, colleges report decreases of 20 per cent. in their income from international fees. I find it hard to understand where the Minister's information about an increase in applications comes from when the evidence that Universities UK has put before me shows quite a different position.
	At the same time, for example, the USA has had an increase in student applications during 2005, and is issuing about 15 per cent. more student visas this year compared with previous years, encouraged by a US Government campaign in China to attract international students to US institutions. I am informed that US visa officers have been advised to concentrate on the intention or ability to study, rather than on the intention to leave on completion of the course. Visa officers concentrated previously on the intention to leave and often had doubts about applicants' intentions to leave, and therefore refused more applications.
	Australia has been running an electronic visa application system in China for several months, and it is proving popular with international students owing to its efficiency and speed. It appears that electronic applications for UK visas in countries such as China are still several years away.
	All those indicators certainly show that we are not doing our best to encourage international students to study in this country. Certainly, in the context of increasing global competition and given the evidence that the market may be suffering, the Government should not press ahead with these potentially damaging measures. Although the downturn cannot be attributed to a single factor—I am being fair—visa changes are still the most commonly cited reason for recruitment difficulties this year.
	It is always good on Report to go back to read what was said in Committee. Once again, the Minister has certainly admitted that attention needs to be given to illegal overstaying as a result of a leave to remain refusal being communicated after the original leave has expired. That is very welcome. However, he has not addressed concerns about the fact that the appeal against removal will not be exercisable in the UK. He has not adequately explained why he thinks it acceptable that students who find that they need to stay for an extra couple of weeks—for example, to attend graduation ceremonies—must return to their home countries to appeal against a decision to remove them from the UK, when it is absolutely clear that, in many cases that relate to students, that will result in the individuals missing the occasion for which they require leave to remain in the UK.

Simon Hughes: Entirely in support of that proposition, may I tell the hon. Lady something that is not theory, but a real experience that many hon. Members have had to deal with for their own constituents and others? I know of someone from Latin America who did a masters degree for a year, finished in the summer and graduated in December, but was required to go back with all the additional expense entailed. In the meantime they were being encouraged to apply for both jobs and further academic opportunities, but they could not do that if they were not in this country, so their whole career was put in jeopardy because of the imposition of that requirement.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving that example because it certainly puts the flesh on the bones of the points that I am making and that other hon. Members will make when they speak to this group of amendments. It is sad to think that someone's career can be blighted by archaic rules practised in this country, when it would be easy for the Minister to make exceptions in such cases and dispense with the anomalies that we are pointing out.

Simon Hughes: A further anomaly is produced—the Minister is alert to this and I hope that he will be sympathetic—when those people have to return. An integrity issue then arises: what do they say is the purpose of coming back? The purpose is to graduate, but are they seeking to come as a visitor, a student or to continue the job applications? So someone who has been entirely open and honest and has contributed to the British economy and society and wants to contribute further may be caught out completely inadvertently because they are in a no person's land when they come back.

Cheryl Gillan: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have been trying to outline exactly that Catch-22 situation, which is something that the Government need to take seriously, as Opposition Members have done.
	Universities UK and the other organisations in the education and immigration sectors firmly oppose the scheme that the Government propose in the Bill. I was disappointed that the Minister was not willing to accept the amendments that I moved in Committee. Unfortunately, these amendments are more narrowly focused on preserving appeals only for international students. Since the Minister repeatedly emphasised in Committee that he understood the education sector's concerns, we hope that he will now reconsider at least some of these proposals. I should like him to tell us whether he has had any representation from the Department for Education and Skills about how it feels about the provisions that he is proposing from the Home Office.
	Again, we must put the proposals clearly into context. There are 210,510 international students in higher education in the UK today. International fee income accounts for 8 per cent. of the total income to the higher education sector. That is about £1.5 billion a year. A further 75,000 international students are studying in further education colleges, and they bring £58 million in tuition fees alone into the FE sector. It is estimated that, in the round, international students contribute about £5 billion to the UK economy through their spending on goods, services, accommodation and so on.

Robert Smith: May I just reinforce the importance of not just that direct economic contribution, but the long-term lifetime contribution of those students' links with the UK, especially if they have studied a practical subject such as engineering? They are much more likely to look favourably on dealing and trading with us when they go back to become major decision makers in their own countries. How we treat them makes a big difference to how they will relate to this country in the future.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are sending the wrong message around the world about the way in which we welcome students here. We are underestimating the enormous long-term benefits that people who are educated in this country can enjoy. Many hon. Members will have been to places abroad where people have said proudly that they were educated in the United Kingdom. That is seen as a badge of honour, so the Government must take anything that damages our reputation in that area seriously before deciding to dispense with public relations so readily through such a draconian measure.

Elfyn Llwyd: I support the hon. Lady's contentions fully. She referred to the large number of international students whom we welcome. Even on the Government's figures, at least 25 per cent. of international students' appeals succeed at the moment. Secondly, it is awful to give out the signal internationally that such young people may be criminalised for wanting to stay on in the course of their legitimate studies. The situation is utterly appalling.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. I hope that he will make a contribution to the debate, certainly about Government amendment No. 27, which relates to monitoring. If we were dealing with a situation in which few mistakes were made and the process was not subjective, we might feel more comfortable. Unfortunately, that is not the case, which explains the concerns being expressed in all quarters of the House.
	Let me continue to put the matter in context. Education and training exports are worth £10.2 billion a year. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that that is more than the amount for food, tobacco, drink, insurance, trips and aircraft. The Chancellor predicted that the figure could be twice that by 2020. If we send out the wrong messages abroad, we will jeopardise that income to UK plc.

Simon Hughes: The consequence of the changes might not be addressing the mischief with which the Government intend to deal. There is mischief because there have been examples of bogus colleges, institutions and courses. It is perfectly proper not to want someone to keep applying to come back again and again when they never pass any exams and are still here seven years after they first came. However, surely reputable, recognised and accepted universities, colleges and other places of learning that offer recognised and accepted qualifications are doing all the right things that Opposition Members—and many Labour Members—would support.

Cheryl Gillan: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendment No. 4, which would insert in the Bill the phrase:
	"the leave was granted to a person to follow a course of study at a UK education institution on the approved register".
	That amendment deals with his point. No one wants to encourage bogus educational establishments and we know that there has been such abuse. With respect, however, the provisions in the Bill are not the best way of dealing with the problem.

Roger Gale: I would hate it if the wrong impression were given. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Office's track record on determining whether an educational institution is bona fide is not terribly good, as I hope to demonstrate if I catch the Speaker's eye later?

Cheryl Gillan: I hope that my hon. Friend will manage to catch the Speaker's eye because he can cite a pertinent and personal example from his constituency that should be brought to the Minister's attention. The Government's track record is far from perfect, hence the problems that we are encountering.
	Let me return to the point about engineering made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Some 39 per cent. of postgraduate research students who are here are international. There are especially high proportions of such students in science, engineering and technology subjects. As the European Commission tells us—goodness knows why I believe the European Commission on this occasion, but I think I probably do—Europe is 700,000 scientists short of meeting what was originally the Lisbon goal of making Europe into a competitive and dynamic set of knowledge-driven economies.
	The Prime Minister launched an initiative in 1999 to attract an extra 50,000 international students to higher education and another 25,000 to further education by 2004. I understand that the Government plan to renew that initiative, but at the same time they are sending out conflicting messages through the Bill.
	The UK attracts 13 per cent. of all international students, with the US attracting 31 per cent. However, we are losing market share. As I said, according to the OECD, the UK lost 3 per cent. of its market share between 1998 and 2002. That was the fastest decline of any OECD country. I admit that the US also lost market share after tightening up on visas following 9/11. It suffered a 2 per cent. drop in 2002–03, but it has learned its lesson and eased up on its visa restrictions. The UK could learn a lesson from the Americans on this matter.
	Amendment No. 6 would delete clause 4 in its entirety. Depending on the Minister's response to the debate, I might be forced to press the amendment to a Division. If that happens, I hope that Members of other Opposition parties—and, indeed, some Labour Members—will join me in the Lobby. The amendment is an attempt to address the heart of our concerns about the Bill. The removal of rights of appeal is opposed on principle and on practical grounds by such a wide range of organisations that I wish to focus the Minister's mind clearly on the problems.
	The Minister has argued that when the new points system on which the Government have been consulting is introduced, it will represent a new and better system. However, the details have not even been finalised yet, let alone road-tested and proven to be effective. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly asked us to trust him. He said that he was confident that the new points system would improve initial decision making. He implied that if we just wait and see, we shall understand that the Government are correct to predict, as they appear to do, that the right of appeal will be rendered unnecessary by improvements to the immigration system.
	The Minister also said that clause 4 was unlikely to commence immediately. I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee about amendments to clause 4. His words on the timing of the abolition of appeal were not exactly reassuring. He said:
	"I cannot say absolutely that clause 4 will not be introduced until after the points system. To be helpful to the Committee—I say this on a personal level, so do not put me up against a wall and hold me to this—I think that it is very unlikely that clause 4 will be implemented before, at the very least, the transition period between the absolute points system and the introduction of elements of the system . . . Do not shoot me should some of clause 4 be implemented before the points system is introduced, but in all likelihood it may not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 October 2005; c. 116.]
	That was as clear as mud. Quite frankly, on the basis of that performance, I would quite like to put the Minister up against a wall and shoot him, because that was probably one of the most inarticulate utterances that we heard from him in Committee.

Tony McNulty: I am sure there were others.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister says that, but I have been through the proceedings with a fine-toothed comb and his performance was not that bad.
	Perhaps the Minister is now in a position to offer a little more clarity about the intended timing. He will understand that the phrase
	"in all likelihood it may not"
	is not an especially firm reassurance to those who believe that it would be entirely wrong to abolish appeals before the points system is up and running and proven to be working.
	We need to focus on amendment No. 6, because the quality of initial decision making is so low that an adequate independent appeals system is essential to the credibility and fairness of our immigration system.
	I am sure that the Home Office view is that appeals are expensive and time consuming for the applicant and especially for the Government, but they would be far less expensive and time consuming if there were not so many basic errors in the initial handling of cases.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes a good point about initial decisions being incorrect. Is not that a theme in all the Government's major agencies, including those administering tax credits, child support and immigration?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend tempts me to go down an enticing route. Yes, the performance of many Government agencies is sadly lacking, especially the Child Support Agency, which has an appalling record. I had an Adjournment debate on that very agency only the other day: a constituent of mine felt that she had been very badly treated.
	The problem is reflected in the statistics. In 2003–04, 65 per cent. of the 225,030 applications for student visas were successful, but 32 per cent. were refused. There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the reasons for refusal are frequently inappropriate or based on a simple misunderstanding of the facts of the case in question. In 2003, we were told that 52 per cent. of all applicants who had been refused initial entry clearance appealed successfully. In cases relating to international students, the official proportion of successful appeals is 25 per cent., but the Immigration Advisory Service states that the appeal was successful in 49 per cent. of the cases in which it acted on behalf of students.
	In 90 per cent. of the cases involving international students who had accepted offers from the university of Sheffield and who were refused visas, either a successful appeal was made or, more commonly, the entry clearance post reconsidered the case before it reached appeal. Professor Bob Boucher, vice-chancellor of the university of Sheffield, has repeatedly made the point that without the right of appeal the incentive for entry clearance officers to reverse a visa refusal following representations will no longer exist. He is echoing a point that is extremely familiar to the House. In 1992, the then shadow Home Secretary opposed a similar measure in the Bill that became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which removed the right of appeal for rejected visitors and short-term students. He said:
	"When a right of appeal is removed, what is removed is a valuable and necessary constraint on those who exercise original jurisdiction . . . The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	I ask the Minister the question I that asked in Committee, to which his answer then was not satisfactory: what has changed since then? Was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) wrong, or merely naive at that stage?
	For the benefit of the House it is important that I give some examples to illustrate my arguments, although I expect that other hon. Members will offer examples of their own. A prospective student with a place at a highly regarded university was told:
	"Similar courses to the one you are proposing to follow were available in Sri Lanka at a fraction of the cost of a similar course in the United Kingdom."
	Unbelievable. Another university reports considerable difficulty in recent months with the visa application process, especially from China and South Asia. It said that on one academic linkage between the university and a partner institution in China, out of 25 applications only 10 were successful in obtaining a visa and then only after two or three attempts. Only as a result of the intervention of senior university staff and Ministry staff in China was a higher level of success achieved, despite it being a joint programme. It said that there appeared to be little appreciation that students had studied two years in China prior to application with the specific intent to transfer for the third and final year to a UK   university. The university believes that it loses between 200 and 300 genuine students each year due to   careless screening, inappropriate questioning and unsympathetic consideration by some visa clearance officers sending the signal of fortress Britain, where students are not necessarily welcome.
	Another university reports difficulties with visas. For one student, doubts were expressed about the student's ability to maintain and accommodate herself—notwithstanding the fact that she had a grant from her own home Government to cover all of her costs. The immigration officer in the case also said that there was no reason for her to experience the British education system, which runs contrary to the spirit of the Prime Minister's initiative. There seems to be scope for further training of ECOs on the importance and quality of UK education. One institution reported that a prospective student from China was told that the course he proposed to study was widely available in China, led to the same qualification at significantly cheaper cost, and said that he could not satisfactorily explain why he did not undertake the course in China.
	Difficulties for sponsored students have been reported by other institutions. Two students were refused on the basis of insufficient funds despite both producing evidence of scholarships that covered the full cost of living and studying in the UK; the decisions in their cases were overturned by entry clearance managers on review following institutional representations.
	I think that I have given the House the flavour of the problem. We are in danger of damaging our reputation further. I do not know whether the Minister has read the article in The Independent of 20 October, which stated:
	"The drop in overseas students becoming obvious this term is affecting old and new universities alike. The big boys such as Warwick and Birmingham are experiencing falls, just as Derby, Greenwich and Southampton Solent are. We won't know the exact figures until mid-November . . . so we don't know yet whether overall overseas student numbers will be down. But we do know that a substantial number of universities are worried. Overseas students have kept British universities afloat, particularly in some subjects. Universities cannot afford a meltdown.
	The reasons for the fall are complex. According to . . . the director of education and training at the British Council, huge competition is building in the overseas student market. Australia, New Zealand, America and Canada have raised their game, and new competitors are emerging, such as Singapore and Malaysia. And China, which used to send large numbers of students abroad, is now recruiting overseas students to its shores."
	If the Minister fails to heed that warning, it will be at the expense of our education establishments.
	I have probably spoken for far too long on this group of amendments, but I feel strongly about the subject. I shall listen carefully to the Minister and if I am less than satisfied by his response, I hope to register our protest against the measures by dividing the House.
	My final comment is on Government amendment No.   27, to which the Minister did not speak. I am pleased to see at least some response to our concerns about the quality of entry clearance decisions, but I ask the Minister to make it clear whether the monitor mentioned in the amendment is a new person, what case load is envisaged and what resources will be allocated to the role. Although I welcome the post, it should not be seen as a plaster to cover the wound of the removal of the appeals system; a monitor will in no way substitute for that system.

Neil Gerrard: I shall try to be briefer than the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was in explaining my concerns about new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 47, 6 and 33.
	New clause 1 is generally welcome because it goes some way to meeting some of the concerns raised in Committee about the position of people whose leave had been curtailed or whose application for variation of leave had been refused and whether they would immediately be committing an offence. There are still some uncertainties. What exactly does it mean and how will it operate? I would be grateful if the Minister could address some of those issues when he replies.
	Subsection (3) is in the middle of the list of conditions that someone has to fulfil in order not to commit an offence. The condition is
	"that a decision has been made to remove the person from the United Kingdom."
	What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that the person has been served with notice of decision to remove, for example? There are many examples where decisions are taken to refuse an application of one sort or another. The decisions having been taken, there is then quite a considerable gap before anything happens about a removal decision. There is certainly a gap before the removal decision is served on the person concerned. I would like there to be clarify on what that condition will mean in practice.
	Secondly, if somebody is covered by new clause 1, is not committing an offence and is awaiting an appeal, exactly what rights do they retain given the permissions that they already have? If someone had an entitlement to work, will that entitlement continue until the time where either removal or appeal occurs? People might be entitled to benefits or other forms of support. They will certainly be coming under some of the conditions in the clause in future. There are those who have been given refugee status—which will now be a temporary protection—whose leave has been curtailed. Will someone in that position still be entitled to any form of support when they are awaiting a decision on appeal? It would be helpful to have some clarity. The clause is well intentioned, but I am not convinced that it is drafted perfectly to cover all situations that might arise.

Simon Hughes: I endorse and underline the point about the need for certainty, especially as regards the right to continue in employment. The benefits system is also important. In my experience, there are many cases where people have had the right to work and then find themselves in the in-between period. They need to be able to produce something to confirm that they continue to have the right to work, that they are self-sufficient and are independent, otherwise they suddenly have to look to the state or to other people for benefits. That means that their prospects are again put at risk. Clearly, an employer does not want to break the law. It is an important issue and clarity is needed.

Neil Gerrard: That situation frequently occurs now. Someone may have been given temporary permission and perhaps exceptional leave to remain, which is coming to an end. They submit an application for indefinite leave, but that will take months to determine. Although their entitlements continue, if they do not have a piece of paper that proves that, there will be problems. I have come across many cases of people having employment problems who have been in that situation. There are also many people who have problems in accessing benefits where the Benefits Agency has not been prepared to accept that the earlier permission still existed. There is then the performance of having to get in touch with the Home Office for confirmation. We need absolute clarity and certainty about what someone's rights will be during the interim period. We must be clear about the meaning of the clause. I suspect that the drafting still has some holes in it.

Sarah Teather: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is exacerbated by the time that it takes the Home Office to make decisions and by the complete opacity of its replies to constituents and to their solicitors? There is no information contained in the letters detailing whether these people really have the right to work or what their status is. This causes the problem. If we could have clarity and speedy decision-making, the situation would be improved.

Neil Gerrard: That is right. Ministers agreed fairly recently that they would look at the form of the letters that are being sent out to ensure that they are clearer in what they say. I hope that there will be improvements and that we shall get away from the notorious 30-week letters that state that decisions will be made within 30 weeks, and then six months later a constituent is asking his MP what is happening.
	Irrespective of the contents of the letters, it is important to be clear about how the new clause will operate and what people's rights will be. We need to know what they are entitled to and what is meant by, for example, a decision to remove. If we do not have that clarity, many people will be in confused situations, with the Benefits Agency, housing authorities and employers not really knowing quite where they stand. Many people will be ending up on our doorsteps wanting help and wanting to know just where they are in the process.
	I welcome the intention behind the clause because it addresses issues that were raised in Committee, but I am not convinced that it is right, given the way in which it has been formulated.
	I move on to the amendments that relate to new clauses 1 and 4. There are amendments that suggest that we leave out, in their entirety, both new clauses. I am gratified that the Conservative party has been converted to the cause of appeals. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was shadow Home Secretary. I think that I have heard the quote about half a dozen times during debates on the Bill. My right hon. Friend was responding to a Conservative Government who were taking away a swathe of appeal rights. At least the Opposition have moved in the right direction.
	All of us who deal with these matters in our constituencies have concerns about the quality of the initial decision-making and about who will lose appeal rights under the provisions that are before us. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say in some detail how he intends to use the powers that he is given within clauses 1 and 4. There are regulation-making powers. In clause 1(4)(fb), the right is given to the Minister effectively to restore appeal rights to more or less whoever he chooses by regulation. He has indicated already that he will intend to use that provision in respect of people who have been given humanitarian protection rather than full refugee status. That is one clear category of person. I hope that he will consider using the powers rather more widely. There are, for example, unaccompanied minors. There are other categories of people whom I hope my hon. Friend will consider.
	Before coming to this place, I worked for a considerable period in further education and dealt with many overseas students. I am familiar with the arguments. Much has been done to get rid of fake colleges. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has raised some scepticism about the Home Office. It is probably the Department for Educations and Skills that he needs to direct his fire at if he thinks that a wrong decision has been made on whether an institution is on the approved list.
	I have been pleased with much of what has been done to get rid of some of the fake institutions. For a start, they were conning students. They were taking large amounts of money from people who really did not have that much money, only to give them nothing worth while. Some of them were facilitating entry into the country of people who had no intention of being genuine students.
	We have done quite a lot to get rid of much the abuse in the system. I am a little wary of proposals to delete clause 1 entirely without replacing some of the appeal rights. People who are given refugee status are no longer given indefinite leave to remain and receive only temporary protection, and clause 1 creates a right of appeal for them if their leave is curtailed in future. Caution is therefore required in removing that provision.

Evan Harris: Members who think that there are various problems with clause 1, including the things that the hon. Gentleman has raised, cannot redesign the provision on Report. We shall seek to delete clause 1, but we also want the other place to grasp the small kernel of good provisions in the clause and replace the rest. I want the hon. Gentleman to know that we accept his concerns.

Neil Gerrard: I am grateful, as that is obviously important. I do not like the new measure which removes indefinite leave for people who are given refugee status. We have had an Adjournment debate on that issue, but the change has been made so it is vital that those people should have the right of appeal if their leave is curtailed.
	In Committee, I raised the issue of unaccompanied minors and, encouragingly, the Minister suggested that he was prepared to look at the issue. Quite a few minors who apply for asylum are simply granted discretionary leave for a year—in some cases, it is less than a year—every year until they reach the age of 18. When they do so they are refused variation of leave on the ground that leave was only granted on the basis of age. People who are given leave for one year or less after being refused asylum do not have the right to appeal against that refusal. Unaccompanied minors or children are given a decision on the variation of leave at 18, but they do not have the right to appeal against the initial refusal. If clause 1 ends the right to appeal against the variation of leave, many of those unaccompanied children will not have any right to appeal at any point in the process against the substantive decision on their asylum claim. That serious problem has been created by the legislation.

Simon Hughes: I hope that we can rid of clause 1, but if we do nothing else today, I hope that Ministers will respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman says. People come here on their own—often without any family to leave behind—from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sierra Leone and central Africa, which has suffered from civil war. They do not have anyone else in the world, but they do brilliantly here—they gain a place at university or college and can contribute to the British economy. Suddenly, at 18, 18½ or 19, they are told that they must go home. However, they do not have a home to go to, so they must have a chance to appeal.

Neil Gerrard: I accept that. In Committee, the Minister accepted that this was a serious issue and that he needed to explore what could be done. He could make a statement that he will use the powers available to him under clause 1 to ensure that unaccompanied minors, as well as people who are granted humanitarian protection, will keep the right of appeal. I hope that at the very least that is what we achieve. Support for unaccompanied minors could also be a problem under Government new clause 1, as it is not clear that such children are still entitled to support from the local authority if they are leaving care, as is supposed to be the case for all children leaving care.
	Clause 4 leaves a great deal of regulatory discretion to the Minister. He has received representations from many hon. Members, so he will know of concerns about the removal of appeal rights under that provision. Many Members are very worried about the possible removal of oral appeals for family visitors. It would be extremely helpful if he could further clarify his approach this afternoon. The Government restored appeal rights to family visitors and we do not want to reverse that positive change.

John Leech: Young single men have been disproportionately affected by the regulations on family visitor appeals. They may have a low-paid job, and they do not have a wife, children or other family connections in their country of origin. As a result, they are told that they do not have a tie to make them return to their own country.

Neil Gerrard: I have seen similar cases. Again, the quality of the initial decision making is crucial, but an appeal mechanism should be retained. I hope that the Minister can provide us with comfort on this point.

Sarah Teather: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech)? I raised the issue when I was in Delhi with the head of UK visas there, and I have seen many such cases in my constituency. A family may be allowed to visit for a wedding or another event, and the only person who will be refused entry will be the young man.

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that Members who deal with such cases will know of similar instances. For example, I recently learned that two sisters applied for a visa to visit. One was granted a visa, but the other was not. It is difficult to see the logic behind those decisions. If there is no right of appeal there is clearly a problem, which is why I am seeking assurances from the Minister.
	I echo what has been said about Government amendment No. 27 and I welcome the extension of powers. It would be useful to know exactly how that will operate and whether the extension applies to the monitor who deals with other types of case or whether there will be an additional monitor. Many hon. Members are concerned about appeal rights in the Bill. Powers in Government new clauses 1 and 4 essentially give the Minister considerable discretion to retain appeal rights as he wishes. I hope that he can give us assurances that, in addition to appeals for people given humanitarian protection, he will give serious consideration to maintaining lone appeals for other significant groups.

Evan Harris: I shall deal with our concerns about clause 1, and I shall also speak to amendment No. 47, which would delete clause 1. I shall look at the problem of overstaying in clauses 1, 3 and 11, and the way in which the Government attempt to solve that problem in new clause 1, as well as the amendments to that provision that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. Finally, I shall say a brief word about clause 4, as a great deal has already been said about it.
	The problem with clause 1 is that people will not be allowed to appeal against a refusal of extension of leave in country. Students, workers and spouses will lose their in-country right of appeal and will have to leave the country in order to appeal. That seems an unfair way of treating people who are in the United Kingdom legally, have abided by the terms of their leave and are simply seeking to extend it.
	Sometimes the initial leave is given with a view to the likelihood of further leave being granted in future. A spouse or an unmarried or civil partner is expected to stay with their partner for more than the initial two year period, of course. If there were doubts about that, they would not have been given leave in the first place. The granting of leave in such a case presupposes a reasonable right to apply for leave and therefore to appeal against decisions that are wrong, without having to seek human rights grounds on which to do so. In addition, business people are welcomed to the UK with limited leave in order to set up a business. I presume the expectation is that they will grow that business once they are here, and therefore seek leave to remain more than two years, particularly in view of the provision that they invest more than £200,000.
	Various groups of people would be affected by the clause. I have mentioned some of them. They include a person married here who has been living two years with their British citizen or British resident spouse, perhaps with children, who has been refused indefinite leave to remain on the basis of that marriage. I will deal in a moment with the proportion of decisions that are won on appeal. It is pretty significant to get that wrong and separate people from their spouse and/or their children.
	The clause would also affect a work permit-holder—for example, a nurse, a maths teacher or a head of an export department in a big company, whose employer wants them to extend their contract but whose application is refused, at least in the average third of cases where that decision is wrong; a person established in a business, who has invested £200,000 or more, and who has created, under the regulations, at least two jobs for people settled in the UK; and a student several years into their studies—we heard examples of how they might be affected in respect of graduation.
	The Government's position seems extremely unreasonable. It is not as though such people had hopeless cases. There is no right of appeal in the case of mandatory refusals—that is, where there is a mandatory requirement on the basis of age or nationality, or specific requirements to switch from one category of leave to another. Those cases do not attract a right of appeal. As I said, 33 per cent. of in-country non-asylum appeals succeeded in 2003, the last year for which figures are available. The Government have never justified the sweeping powers in clause 1.
	The Minister suggested in Committee that it was unfair to give a right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave in cases where the decision results in people having no leave left, whereas those who applied and were refused before their original leave runs out get no such appeal. However, that unfairness does not exist in practice, because as we know, the Home Office urges people not to apply for a variation, such as an extension, until shortly—usually a month—before their leave expires. When a person applies for a variation and is refused before their leave runs out, the normal practice would be for them to make a fresh application before the leave expires. It is not an appeal, but it provides an opportunity to address what are said to be the shortcomings in their original application, which are identified in the refusal.
	At present, people prefer not to do that because of the cost, but if they are faced with the prospect of becoming overstayers if they do not, more will apply earlier. If more people apply more than a month before their leave runs out, that will create more bureaucracy or a replacement bureaucracy for the Home Office. That does not make sense. I see one of the Ministers—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—in his place. Can he confirm that it will be his policy to continue to tell people not to apply for a variation more than 28 days in advance, or does he recognise that the effect will be that people will want the opportunity to get their refusal while they still have leave to remain?
	I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for  Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in respect of unaccompanied minors. I shall not repeat what he said in the Chamber or in Committee, but he is right.
	Our main concerns about clause 1, in summary, are that the Government's desire for a single appeal can be achieved using existing powers. If the object is streamlining, we demonstrated in Committee that there are alternative ways to achieve that. We are not opposed absolutely to streamlining, but the provision is not a fair way of doing so. It is misleading to say, as the clause does, that people will still have a right of appeal against removal, if they will be able to exercise it only after they have left the UK. That is not the same thing. It puts people at a significant disadvantage and it is no cheaper for the Home Office to run the appeal from abroad. If anything, it may well be more expensive. The Government are relying on people not bothering to appeal. Denial of justice is not a substitute for justice.
	We have already explained that the Home Office decision making is poor, so the best thing the Home Office could do is improve decision making, not deny appeal rights. The rights at stake are important. We have discussed the situation of spouses and people who are investing or working or who want to continue their rights to education and training. The opportunity for all these good things—family life, more education and training, investment—will be lost if people have to leave the country for an appeal against removal. The current system is not broken in terms of its structure. Decision making could be improved, but it does not need fixing on the suggested basis.
	In Committee the Minister spoke at length about the new managed migration schemes. I am not inviting him to do so again, as he spoke eloquently and with passion on the subject then. Whatever the system is, there will still be the problem of people seeking to extend their leave. The Government say there will be a new and better scheme, but that does not solve the problem of injustice. There will still be human rights applications, which will still be allowed, but because of the fracture to family life that will result from the provision, more people will attempt to make such appeals than would otherwise be the case. The Government will not gain as much as they anticipate.
	On the new clause, the problem that the Government have created in respect of clauses 1 and 11, which was clause 9 earlier, is, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that people are effectively overstayers when they receive the first judgment—that is, they do not get extended leave. I am disappointed by new clause 1, which is why I tabled a series of amendments. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke to those amendments, so it will not be necessary for me to speak to them at length.
	The Minister said he would deal with the problem of criminalisation, although he did not accept the language adopted. However, as we heard from the hon. Lady, the new clause does not do that very effectively. He also said in Committee, at column 60, that he intended to clarify matters. However, given all the issues that were raised, not least by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the new clause does not do so at all. It does little more than reflect the status quo and is quite inadequate.
	On the basis of what he has heard in the debate, can the Minister say whether there will be other provisions to follow new clause 1? If he can give that undertaking, it would be welcome. However, if the Government propose nothing more than new clause 1 to deal with the issues raised by calling people overstayers before they have had a chance to exercise their right of appeal, that is a problem. Does he recognise that people who lodge a human rights appeal have an in-country right of appeal, and that, like everyone else with an in-country right of appeal now, they are allowed to stay in the country on the basis of their existing conditions while that appeal is heard? Even when there is a human rights appeal to be heard and it is not certified as clearly unfounded, the Government are saying that those people will still be treated as overstayers. That is a real change for people in the country who are arguing a non-certified human rights claim. Will the Minister at least concede that those people should not be considered as overstayers and that their existing leave should carry through to the appeal stage, as it does now? Does he think that anyone should be entitled to carry through their appeal right, and if so, who?
	Is the Minister going to do something about the problem, which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has already identified, that people who leave the country to appeal will do so as overstayers, which will blot their records? That problem is caused by the architecture of the Bill, and new clause 1 does not deal with it effectively.
	I will deal with the Liberal Democrat amendments to new clause 1. Amendment (c) would insert the following:
	"At a time when the conditions in this section are satisfied a person's leave to enter or remain is extended by virtue of this section save that such extension shall not prevent a decision to remove the person from the United Kingdom being made."
	That is the key point that the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Chesham and Amersham and I were trying to capture in Committee. I cannot see why it is not possible for the right to remain to carry through to a simple right to appeal against the decision to remove.
	Amendment (a) would leave out "Condition 2" to probe why none of the rights not to be persecuted apply until after a decision has been made to remove, when we know that a decision to remove can happen many days, weeks or months after the decision on the extension.
	Amendment (b) is a consequential amendment. Amendments (d) and (e) are another way of making the point to the Government that their approach is not reasonable. They seek to clarify that people are entitled to some consideration when a decision could be made to remove a person.
	In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that he would not discuss the amendments until they had been introduced. I hope that he will address not only their structure, but the real reasons behind them, which have been politely put from both sides of the House.
	We have a major problem with clause 4 in and of itself. It is not right when the quality of decision making is so poor to sweep aside appeal rights. The priority should be to improve decision making, and in Committee we recognised the Government's willingness to implement programmes to improve decisions. Sweeping away appeal rights is wrong, regardless of the consequences for the universities and for family life.
	I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and will not repeat them, but I have a number of questions. Are the Government planning to define "family visitor" more narrowly? And will Parliament have an opportunity to examine the draft regulations to see who will have appeal rights before hon. Members are asked to vote on the legislation?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is right that whether an applicant is a member of the family needs consideration. The definition will be determined by regulation, and it could be extremely restrictive. Does he agree that, for example, an unmarried partner may have no right of appeal under the regulation?

Evan Harris: That is right. It is not clear whether an unmarried or civil partner is a dependent relative. Given that the Government are keen to recognise civil partners—I commend them for doing so—the point is important.
	In Committee, I raised the question of conformity with European Community law, and the Minister expressed his willingness to return to that matter. If I have missed a letter from him, or if I misunderstood him in Committee, I apologise, but that question needs to be addressed. If the Bill is to conform with EC law, when will regulations be laid before Parliament?
	In Committee, I also raised the question of returning residents. Returning residents are people with indefinite leave to remain in the UK who have been out of the country and who are refused entry when they seek to return. Will they lose the opportunity to return to their long-term home with no right of appeal, and if so, what is the Government's purpose? The Government must think again about clause 4.
	I am giving the Government an opportunity to provide assurances on improving new clause 1, which would be something. The hon. Member for Walthamstow has said that he has found the kernel of something good in new clause 1, but he must have looked very closely.

Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman has put the words into my mouth, because I do not think that I said that new clause 1 is "good". New clause 1 is obviously necessary if refugees are no longer to be given indefinite leave to remain, which is a change that I do not like.

Evan Harris: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If new clause 1 is not improved, or if the Government do not indicate that they will consider our amendments, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will seek to vote on amendment No. 47, which would delete clause 1. We would ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support us in such a vote because of the real problems that the Bill will create. I feel that if we do not do it here, another place could, should and will.

Roger Gale: I want to discuss amendment No. 3 and the right of appeal for would-be students, and I will use the example of a particular educational establishment to demonstrate why the Government's approach is profoundly wrong.
	Before I do so, as a generality I endorse entirely the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) in her opening remarks. The measures undoubtedly damage the interests of universities in the United Kingdom, and, perhaps much more importantly, they also damage the interests of UK Ltd.

Tony McNulty: indicated dissent.

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend the Member for Cheshamand Amersham has made the point that educational establishments—universities and colleges—are experiencing a decline in the numbers of foreign students. Those of us who have the good fortune to travel abroad as election observers in developing countries with the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association see China, which is the largest developing country in the world, moving into a whole host of other countries, where it seeks to gain an advantage in the same way as the former Soviet Union.
	The British legacy—let us be proud of it—across the continent of Africa is significant, but scores of Africans are now looking to other places and other institutions both to the east and to the west of this country because they feel that it will be difficult to get here, that it will be expensive to pay their way and that they will not be made welcome. Nothing could be further from the truth: if one asks the university vice-chancellors, they say that they want to welcome overseas students with open arms, but the impression has been given—impressions are vital, particularly in the developing world—that it will be difficult and unpleasant to study in Britain and that overseas students are not wanted, which is a sad state of affairs.
	I ask the Minister to consider the effect of that impression in a generation's time. All those people are ambassadors, many of whom have brilliant brains and very good qualifications. They have traditionally come to the United Kingdom, qualified, and gone back home having become the friends of this country. Now, they are going to be lost to us. It is no good the Minister shaking his head, as he did a few moments ago. The Bill will have a profound effect on British business and our power and influence throughout the world. That is the backdrop to what I want to say.
	I want to take one very specific point to prove why I believe that this part of the Bill is nonsense and amendment No. 3 is so important. The Institute of St. Anselm in Cliftonville in my constituency is a highly reputable Roman Catholic college. Some of its buildings were opened by Archbishop Basil Hume. For most of the early years of my membership of this House, students—nuns, priests and ordinands—came from around the world, but particularly from Africa, to study theology there. In 2002, we suddenly experienced a spate of visa refusals for students to attend the institute.
	I have a file on this subject that is more than 12 in high. I am holding in my hands 87 separate pieces of paper. Hon. Members will be delighted to know that I do not propose to quote from most of them, but I will quote from some of them. On 25 June 2002, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who was then a Home Office Minister, about the problems that the Institute of St. Anselm was having:
	"the Institute is a bona fide organisation and . . . therefore applicants of this kind"—
	the students—
	"should have their requests granted rather than turned down and forced to go to appeal."
	I have personally dealt with 19 cases that would have been ruled out of court under the Bill.
	When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham to say that the Home Office's track record on defining a bona fide institution was not entirely brilliant, the Minister said from a sedentary position, "It's just as well that the DFES does it then, isn't it?" That sentiment was broadly echoed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that is therefore important that the Minister tells us whether the Department for Education and Skills has made any representations—and, if not, why not?

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would   perhaps have been helpful to hear from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well, because interdepartmental responsibility is involved.
	On 25 July, following my letter to the then Minister, Lord Filkin—a Home Office Minister—responded. He said that
	"as a result of the enquiries by my officials,"—
	that is, Home Office, not DFES, officials—
	"it was decided that the institution did not fully meet the requirements of a bona fide institution, hence the reason for the refusal decision."
	We challenged that in the light of the institute's background and support from the Catholic church, including eminent people such as Cardinal Basil Hume.
	On 8 August, I wrote to Lord Filkin. I said:
	"I feel that the time has come when I have to ask formally that the status of The Institute of St Anselm be investigated and recognised formally in view of the assertion pertained in your letter that 'The Institute did not fully meet the requirements of a bona fide institution'."
	I had to write to him again on 17 September, saying:
	"I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to confirm that this matter is now being dealt with as a matter of urgency . . . and would like your assurance that it has been satisfactorily resolved."
	Throughout this time, students were being turned away and having to appeal on grounds that would be denied under the Bill.
	On 12 September 2002, Mr. Lawrence from the integrated casework directorate of the immigration and nationality directorate wrote to Louise Cuming at the Institute of St. Anselm, saying:
	"I can confirm that from the information submitted, I am happy that the Institute of St Anselm meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules."
	We thought that we were back on track—that the students seeking to apply would have their visas granted and there would be no need for them to appeal—but no. That is what the IND said in September, but on 1 October Lord Filkin wrote to me to say that
	"further enquiries are already being made by the Immigration Service to establish whether or not St Anselm is now deemed to meet the necessary requirements to qualify as 'bona fide'."
	Although one part of the immigration service believed that the institute was bona fide, Lord Filkin was pursuing further inquiries.
	On 7 October 2002, Lord Filkin wrote to me to say:
	"You will be pleased to hear that those investigations are now complete and my officials are now satisfied that all of the requirements of the Rules have been met.
	I understand that a letter to this effect was sent to Louise Cuming on 12 September and I am enclosing a copy".
	That was despite his having written to me on 1 October to say that inquiries were still going on, at the same time as students were still being turned down and required to go to appeal. Those appeals would be denied under the Bill. That is why amendment No. 3 is so important.
	Following Lord Filkin's letter, the director of the Institute of St. Anselm wrote to me to say:
	"However it has to be said that this information had clearly not penetrated Heathrow Airport three weeks later, where three of our students were held for between six and twelve hours while our status was clarified . . . It is therefore disappointing to see that the same information . . . does not appear to have reached Lord Filkin."
	We can begin to see a pattern emerging.
	Perhaps the Minister will begin to understand why I have very little confidence in the ability of the system—part of which may be the responsibility of the DFES and the FCO, and a significant part is certainly that of the Home Office—to ensue that fair decisions are reached. Unless we are absolutely certain that decisions are fair, students who are unfairly treated, or feel unfairly treated, must have some right of appeal.
	After all that, one would have thought that things would be all right. Geoffrey Filkin had told me that it was a mess and that he was going to sort it out. However, I had to write to him again on 8 November of that year. I said:
	"On Sunday the 30th September Jabulani Khumalo, a student intending to commence a course at the Institute of St Anselm arrived at Heathrow Airport at 7am. Mr. Khumalo carried letters of invitation from the Institute, a letter of designation from the Bishop . . . and confirmation that the fees would be paid directly by the Diocese."
	I will not go through the whole sorry incident, but Mr. Khumalo was held for three hours. Investigations were conducted and correspondence was opened, and he was finally escorted to the plane and escorted off it when he arrived back in Johannesburg. Eventually he came back to the United Kingdom.
	In my letter to Lord Filkin, I went on to say:
	"It is . . . plain that the assertion made by Mr. Lawrence to the effect that 'I have today notified staff and Ports' is . . . nonsense".
	The fact is that the undertakings given by the Home Office throughout this sorry episode have not been worth the paper that they are written on. I appreciate that I am talking about one educational establishment, but I have no reason to suppose that such errors are not being made time and again.
	Lord Filkin wrote to me on 15 May—we are now in 2003, so this has been going on for more than a year—to say that
	"following our previous correspondence, assurances were given both to yourself and the Institute that the establishment now met the requirements of the Immigration Rules and that immigration staff had been advised of this fact. It is most regrettable however that whilst the Institute was informed of this on 12 September 2002, the central computerised records were not amended until early October. It is now apparent that students intending to study at St Anselm's continued to experience difficulties".
	He was so right about that.
	More time passed, and more students were affected. We are about halfway through the 19 cases now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they are piling up. On 6 May 2004, a year later, I had to write to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was by then at the Home Office, to say:
	"In spite of this and Geoffrey Filkin's clear undertakings, the message does not appear to have reached Entry Clearance Officers around the world",
	and more in the same vein. On 29 June 2004, I wrote again to the Minister to point out
	"the failure of successive government ministers to properly resolve this issue in spite of assurances given to me".
	On 30 June 2004, there was more of the same. The Minister wrote to me to address the issues, and effectively to apologise, mentioning an "error". He wrote:
	"As each student application will be checked against this information, I hope that there will be no repeat of mistakes of the past by entry clearance officers about the status of the Institute".
	This was two years after the Department had determined that everything was all right.
	On 1 July 2004, Jessica Mabbutt, the head of the correspondence section at UKvisas, wrote to me:
	"The Institute of St Anselm's correct status as an educational establishment is now available to all Entry Clearance Officers and I hope that the Institute's status should no longer be cited as a reason for refusal in any application."
	Yet still the cases were coming in. Without the right of appeal that would be made available in the amendments tabled today, these students would have been denied access to the education that they were finally, in most cases, able to enjoy in the United Kingdom.
	We come, at last, to this year. On 8 February 2005, I wrote to Bharat Joshi, head of section at UKvisas. I want to place on it record that Bharat Joshi is one of the most helpful and sympathetic civil servants that it has ever been my privilege to work with. He is a super guy, and he tries his level best to sort things out. I wrote to him, and he was immensely helpful, but even he could not sort this out. I received a letter from UKvisas on 21 March 2005, which stated:
	"Although at the time of Fr Okora's application the Entry Clearance Officer was satisfied that Fr Okora met the other student criteria, the Institute of St Anselm was not at that time"—
	this is 2005—
	"on the list of recognised educational establishments."
	This is three years later—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there was not one. If that is so, why does UKvisas go on to say:
	"His application therefore fell to be refused"?
	What would Father Okora have done if there had been no right of appeal?
	I wrote to the Home Secretary, the Minister's boss, on 30 March this year, to say that I would be grateful if he would look into the matter. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was by then the Minister in charge—we have got through quite a chapter of Ministers in the Department, have we not? Let us bear it in mind that the institute has been recognised, then not recognised and then recognised again. The Minister wrote on 14 April:
	"I am satisfied that there was no fault within the Department's procedures and that the Institute of St Anselm was included on the Register at the earliest opportunity."
	Four years? Are we serious?
	On 8 July, I wrote to the head of correspondence at UKvisas, Peter Hooper—another extremely helpful civil servant—and told him that
	"I was given Ministerial assurances that our Embassies and High Commissions would be notified of the approval of the institute".
	On 1 August 2005—we are nearly there, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I received a letter from UKvisas concerning Sister Bernadette Mwita, saying:
	"The Entry Clearance Manager in Nairobi reviewed the decision to refuse entry clearance in the light of your representations . . . and decided, given the information enclosed with your letter, to overturn the refusal decision."
	What would Sister Bernadette Mwita have done about her education at the Institute of St. Anselm, had there been no right of appeal?
	Sister Matilde Adong, Sister Joan Tombe, Sister Anna Patrick, Sister Teresa Hanh, Sister Mary Kim,   Yaqub Gill, Jabulani Khumalo, Mary Ebbele, Leopold Kashama, Cajetan Metu, Barthelemy Namdeganaramna, Rita Dube, Lourdes Manrique, Hye Ko, David Okeke, Leo Rozario, Ambroise Bahiya, Bernadette Mwita and Joyce Hoedoafia are all real people whose initial applications to come to this country to study—in many cases as sisters in the Catholic faith—were rejected by entry clearance officers because of the blinding incompetence of the Home Office and its inability to recognise this one institute. I recognise that this is one case, but it involves 19 real people. If this can happen in the case of the Institute of St. Anselm, what might be happening in all the other educational establishments across the country?
	I am firmly convinced that the Government are making a profound error. In all equity, a right of appeal must be granted to students whose applications to come to this country to study on bona fide educational courses are rejected. I hope, for that reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham to move amendment No. 3 and to press it to a vote. I shall most certainly support it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to support amendment No. 3, amendment (c) and the consequential amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The most controversial parts of the Bill, clauses 1 and 4, also cause the most concern. They would result in there being no more in-country appeals in variation cases in which people had applied to extend their leave or to change from one category to another. I understand the need to tidy up in this area, but the Bill is not the right vehicle for that exercise—at least, not the Bill as currently framed.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and others have said that one of the most insidious consequences of these measures will be their effect on international student numbers. All our universities depend to a large degree on international students. We should be proud of the fact that people come here to study, succeed, and make an economic contribution to society—whether in the UK or abroad, it matters not.
	I went to Aberystwyth university in Wales in the early 1970s, and I was proud to have friends there of many nationalities, including people from sub-Saharan Africa and many from Iraq. Most of them were studying agriculture, and many went on to study for an MSc or PhD. They would probably not be allowed to do that now because their time would be up. In March this year, I met two members of the Iraqi Cabinet who had studied in Wales, but it will be far more difficult for such people to study here in future, which is a great sadness—[Interruption.] The Minister, in his usual way, shouts, "Rubbish".
	Home Office decision making is, as we all know, of poor quality, and one of the most important things that must be done is to improve the quality of that decision making. Even a cursory look at the figures shows that many appeals are granted because of mistakes made at an early stage. Whether they were innocent mistakes or not I do not know, but we are all aware that some pretty basic mistakes are made.
	We have heard many statistics today, one of which was that, according to the Government's figures, 25 per cent. of student appeals are successful. Other statistics show a figure as high as 49 per cent. Even the lower figure represents tens of thousands of students who, under the Bill, would be forced to leave the UK to present their appeal.
	It was said earlier that the Bill might be a way to get rid of such people because they will not bother appealing once they have left this country. That is insidious. It is unfortunate that this Government, of all people, are presenting such a measure and it is misleading to say that there is a right of appeal against removal when it will be exercised only when the person has left the UK. That is nonsense. There are things that the Government can do under existing legislation. I understand their desire to achieve a single appeal, but many commentators say that that can be done under current powers. I must stress that decision making needs to be improved.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, said that many things are at stake. He and I, and others, have received the Immigration Law Practitioners Association briefing, which I found very useful. He mentioned the right to be with a spouse and children and the right to continue in business. All those rights are important.
	Many variation cases will involve human rights claims, and as was said earlier, there is a right to present those human rights claims within the UK jurisdiction. Therefore, even on that basis, I fail to see how the Bill can be certified as being compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, although time will tell. It is obvious to me—to anyone, I think—that human rights points will become stronger if people are forced to leave the UK pending appeal. It will, inevitably, bring the legislation into disrepute if, time after time, human rights cases are presented to defeat it.
	If the Government insist on taking these powers, one would have hoped they would redesign the clauses to achieve a broader in-country appeal process that could anticipate the consequences of removal, and that they would not base their new proposals on an appeal right that was available only to those who have left the UK. That has been stressed; it is worthy of being stressed again.
	I shall not keep hon. Members any longer. The amendments are sensible and I hope that the House, if it divides, will support them.

Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief, but I hope that the Minister, as I have heard him do in other contexts recently, pays heed to some of the strong cases that we are making in calling for clauses 1 and 4 to be substantially rethought. I do not dissent from the points put by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), as well as other colleagues. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made a particularly good case, which I hope has resonated among hon. Members.
	I want to make three observations, which relate to the two categories of people that the debate is about and which support amendments Nos. 47 and 6, which, effectively, would allow us to start again in this area by removing those parts of the Bill. Those categories of people are students and those who come here aged under 18 and are suddenly told when they are over 18 that they can no longer stay.
	I make my observations from three pieces of experience. First, as a constituency MP, I have regularly dealt with such cases, which have caused unnecessary additional trauma to people who come here with the best of motives, wanting to give of their best and to contribute. They come with the intention of learning and then leaving or because they can think of nowhere better in the world to come to.
	I am dealing with several cases at the moment, and I alluded earlier to some of the countries involved, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Another that comes to mind is Liberia—often, the African countries involved have a very poor recent history. Other people come here as students from perfectly peaceful countries. They are regular people who come to Britain because they think it is either the best place to learn or the best place to come to having had to flee their own country.
	Secondly, I make my observations on behalf of institutions such as those in my constituency that either want these people to come to them if they are students or want to take them on if they come fleeing from torture. I represent London South Bank university and a large part of King's college, London. The medical and dental schools are in my constituency. Many London School of Economics students live in student residences in Southwark, as do students from other universities and colleges and, locally, students from Southwark college.
	Institutions such as those not only benefit from and rely on such people coming here, but contribute hugely because they are coming—not just from the Commonwealth, but from all over the world. The institutions benefit in particular from people who come from the Commonwealth because they want to be here and think they will be welcome. Given that so many such people have a history of being rejected only to succeed on appeal—we have heard the figures—it would be quite wrong to deprive people in that category of the opportunity to appeal.
	Thirdly—this is not a declarable interest, but I have registered it because it matters—I make my observations because I have been privileged to be involved with the Council for Education in the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. Both seek to foster good relationships, and other Members of the House, across the parties, have been involved. The Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council gets involved when people are teenagers and growing up so that they will think well of our country and might consider this a place to come to, just as we want our young people to experience other countries. There is a reciprocal benefit: we give, but we also receive; we send our people abroad so that we can receive others.
	The Council for Education in the Commonwealth is about ensuring that people have shared Commonwealth experiences as young adults. That cannot work if so many people go back to their country reporting difficulties, which undermines the ethos and credibility of this being a good place to come to. That is the point that the hon. Member for North Thanet made.
	A friend of mine is a Southwark councillor who fled Sierra Leone and became the first African mayor of Southwark. He did his university studies in Russia. I have no complaint about that, but the reality is that other places—whether in eastern Europe, Russia, China or elsewhere—will bid for and take those who should rightfully come to us and will benefit from it.
	I hope that the Minister understands that the Government's new clause and their other amendments will not remedy that problem, as the Bill will create it. We are dealing with limited categories of people and   recognised institutions. The amendment tabled by   the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) would ensure that we were dealing with recognised institutions, whether it be Oxford and Cambridge or St. Anselm's in Cliftonville, Kent. These would be places that were being seen to do a valid job, whether they be generalist or specialist, or agricultural or theological colleges. They would be places where people came to learn English or computer skills.
	I ask the Minister to consider and respond sympathetically to a serious and regular case. If we can get this right, we shall do our reputation a huge amount of good. If we get this wrong, we shall further disadvantage our reputation. We could also harm the prospects of those people of complete integrity and merit—mainly, they are young—who benefit from coming here and who have a right legally and validly to put their case to stay for a further course or a further opportunity, but whom the system is somehow failing.
	I hope the Minister will make a hugely sympathetic response. If we do not manage to succeed today, we shall rely on the House of Lords to change this part of the Bill, which is wrong and which will have adverse and serious consequences.

Adam Afriyie: I want to thank the Minister for the spirit in which he introduced the debate, which has encouraged some open and honest contributions. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for his contribution, which gave 19 tangible examples in relation to the amendments. I want to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
	Certainly, the holding of British nationality is a privilege that must not be underestimated. British citizenship and educational qualifications are much sought-after commodities across the globe. We have a proud history and heritage, and a successful and prosperous economy that has been built up over hundreds of years, alongside our educational institutions. Our heritage is on display across the nation, not only in historic buildings and infrastructure but in the education institutions that we all know and that many of us have enjoyed. We also have a vibrant democracy.
	With the robust and extensive infrastructure that we have built up over generations—sewers, rail networks, power stations, airports and roads—as well as our vast array of substantial historic buildings and institutions of state, and our excellent universities and higher education establishments, it is no wonder that people from across the world, of all nationalities, wish to join us for a short or sometimes longer period to study and learn. We have a great history of welcoming not only those genuinely fleeing terror but those who seek to learn at our educational establishments.
	We want to encourage overseas students to pay for studying at our institutions. International students derive many benefits from studying in Britain. It provides not only an excellent education by world standards, but an opportunity to learn about our way of life, culture and customs. That builds a reservoir of good will among those students for their future relationships with the United Kingdom.
	Without the amendments, and by removing the right of appeal for certain classes of students, we shall build a reservoir not of good will but of ill will. Someone who comes here to study, of which we have heard many examples, pays fees that help our economy and, in a way, subsidises the education of British citizens. The education that they receive propagates the English language across the globe, and students become more comfortable about dealing with Britain, as they have an understanding of our institutions and democracy.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to the debate. Does he agree that it is also a two-way street? Having foreign nationals as students in our universities is also of great benefit to UK students, who learn about the cultures, practices and procedures in other countries. At a time of world turmoil, that is an important factor.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is true that there is an exchange of understanding between various cultures and political systems, which bodes well for future relations.
	Most Members' postbags are full of problems associated with the Home Office, not only delays in processing applications but delays and mistakes in appeals and granting people access to appeals. Some students might undertake a particular course, and then expect to move on to take a further course, such as a PhD. Without the amendments, delays in processing their applications would mean that they would be asked to leave the country, and their right of appeal would be removed. That would generate a strong sense of ill will towards a country about which they felt very positive when they arrived.

Elfyn Llwyd: Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that student numbers had apparently not gone down. We had the same debate on the tuition fees debacle, and the same comment was made then. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this Bill is passed unamended, student numbers from abroad will definitely decrease?

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is some ambiguity over the numbers, but it seems fairly clear from the percentage of international students coming to Britain that we are beginning to lose our share of the international student market. The Science and Technology Committee has considered that issue over the past few years, and it seems clear that if student numbers are reduced, there is a danger that many of our educational establishments, especially in STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—areas, will suffer.

Evan Harris: I serve with the hon. Gentleman on that Select Committee. One of the issues that we consider is the problem of the brain drain of researchers from this country, but by stopping students coming here, we are stopping brains arriving in the first place. The two problems are additive.

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I have enjoyed my time serving with him on the Science and Technology Committee. We must not overestimate the impact, but it is undeniable that there will be an impact.

Jeremy Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most promising and important markets for international students is the Chinese market, and that the number of students coming from China has decreased dramatically? That is partly because the United States has just relaxed visa requirements for Chinese students, at precisely the same time as we have made it more difficult for Chinese students to come to this country to study.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend makes an excellent observation, which is certainly factually correct. The Minister is shaking his head—if he disagrees, perhaps he would like to justify himself with some proper statistics.
	Without the amendments, the ill will caused by delays and inadequacies at the Home Office is likely to lead to open hostility towards the visa system and the treatment of international students in Britain.

Keith Vaz: I apologise for joining the debate during the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that one way in which the system could be improved is through the three Departments concerned with entry clearance—the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs—using one reference number to deal with such cases? He must have had the same problem as I and other Members have had in trying to find three reference numbers to deal with one particular case.

Adam Afriyie: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just arrived in the Chamber. There is no evidence that that approach would have the effect for which the hon. Gentleman hopes. If he thinks that it would, I suggest that he raises the matter with his party, whose thinking on the subject seems disjointed.
	It is clear that one in four Home Office rulings on international students is incorrect. Our postbags bear testament to that. I would like to see international students continue to value and rate highly the education that they get in Britain, particularly in science and technology subjects. I would be very concerned if the Bill were to pass in its current form, without special classes of international students continuing to have the right of appeal, especially in the absence of Home Office efficiency.

Tony McNulty: As I said at the start of the debate in introducing new clause 1, it is right and proper that Members should speak to the new clause and their assorted amendments specifically in relation to education, and that I should then respond. I do not seek to detain the House, but clearly many serious points have been made.
	In passing, those who observe our debate from afar would think that there was an unrelenting attack on the whole notion or existence of overseas students in this country. I caution Members to be slightly more temperate in their language. We are not about to lose every overseas student application as a result of the Bill, and those who claim that are highly misinformed. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who has just bothered to join us, talked about the huge changes that would be made in regulations governing overseas student applications. That is not in this Bill. My hon. Friend should either go and find the Bill that it is in, or desist from misinformed and ill-informed comment.
	This is a serious subject. No one demurs, in substance, from the notion of what overseas students add to our broader higher education community. No one in Committee, where we engaged in highly informed debate, said anything other than that, and for all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) we continue to welcome and positively encourage overseas students. No one at a reception that I attended—

Keith Vaz: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister when he was about to tell us about the reception that he was attending when he gathered the evidence that he needs to present to us. I understand what he is saying, but the universities themselves are saying that fewer students will come here as a result of the Bill. That is why we need to take the issue seriously. The universities deal with it day in, day out. Unless decision making is better in the posts abroad—I know that the Minister has just been to New Delhi, where we have one of our best posts—we will still have a problem.

Tony McNulty: I do not underestimate some of the difficulties that many universities are experiencing, but I challenge the notion that either a £50 increase in the cost of visas—the first hook on which all the malaise of the HE sector was hung—or what the Bill says about appeals is absolutely and quintessentially, which is how the universities sometimes put it, the reason for the malaise that affects some courses. There are substantive reasons for the fact that the huge success of the HE sector in recent years is now being challenged. The language used by some members of the sector suggests that the entire world is crumbling down. It is not—there is a vibrancy about many courses, although I do not dispute the fact that some universities are experiencing difficulties with overseas recruitment for certain courses. What I do dispute, as I told the Universities UK board at a recent meeting, is the casual, causal empiricism that leads people to say that it is all the Home Office's fault and that nothing else in the entire world is causing the malaise.

Cheryl Gillan: If there is absolutely no problem—

Tony McNulty: No one has said that.

Cheryl Gillan: Then I shall choose my words carefully. If there is a wonderful, thriving, vibrant market in international students in Europe, why is the President of the European Union proposing that foreign students completing doctorates in Europe should be offered citizenships in an effort to lure them into that market, and why is the Prime Minister backing that idea as part of his liberal reform agenda? Why did he push it during his presidency, which of course will end in December?

Tony McNulty: With respect, that is another issue entirely. It is a post-education issue.

Charles Walker: I want to thank the Minister for helping me with a difficult case that has been on my desk for the past few months. A few weeks ago, I met the chancellor and vice-chancellor of Hertfordshire university, who were having particular problems with Chinese students. I shall not go into those problems now, but would the Minister mind if I wrote to him about them?

Tony McNulty: I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me, and for the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) to do likewise. I listened carefully to his rather lengthy recitation of the difficulties affecting the Institute of St Anselm. I think that many of his complaints relate to clause 4, which deals with entry clearance, rather than to new clause 1 and amendment No. 3, but if there are continuing problems affecting the institute and I can help with them, I shall be more than happy to oblige. Nevertheless, I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's starting point, which is that the 19 cases that he mentioned prove that the Bill is not appropriate.
	I should have made a point at the beginning of my speech. Someone kindly alluded to it earlier, and I accept that it is a difficulty. The Bill must be seen not just in the context of the consultation paper on the points system—consultation ended only on 7 November—but, as I said in Committee, in the context of all that we are trying to do in regard to the entry clearance officer decision-making process. I said in Committee, and will say again, that I accept the charge that all ECO decision making throughout the entire world that takes place under the auspices of UKvisas could, broadly, be improved. I have committed myself to ensuring that those improvements are undertaken now, and will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) kindly read out probably the most turgid remarks that I made in Committee about the link between the commencement of the orders on appeal and the improvements in ECO decision making. I shall say more about that later.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the Minister for giving way so gracefully. I hope that his answer will be equally graceful. May I be bold enough to suggest that he sets a target for reducing the number of incorrect decisions to allow an appeal before the Bill is implemented?

Tony McNulty: I take that point, which is germane to what I just said about the link between commencement orders and other matters. However, I shall not go down that road. I think most fair-minded people would accept that the position is not as clear-cut as "successful appeal equals bad initial decision"—[Interruption.] That is the import of what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. He should calm down.
	Limited empirical evidence from the National Audit Office and material that we discussed in Committee suggest that up to 50 per cent. of problems—happily only 50 per cent.—were caused by inaccurate or incomplete documentation at the start of the process, or by the absence of some element at the start of the decision making. We need to explore those issues, and I shall be more than happy to do so in a moment. However, the crude notion that appeal success equals bad initial decision is simply not sustainable.

Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend's comments about the vibrancy of universities were welcome, but his account of their complaints was a travesty of the way in which I interpret what I consider to be genuine concerns. Many cases are overturned as a result of initial decisions because academics draw attention to problems, and a manager examines the position again. How will the Bill deal with that? Surely the poor decision making in the Department is due to the complexity of the legislation and the ever-increasing number of changes that the Government are introducing. Would not better and better administration be preferable to more and more legislation?

Tony McNulty: With respect, that is entirely wrong in most instances. I was not traducing or undermining anything that the universities had said. I fully recognise that there are difficulties in the sector. What I dispute is the causal link between the Bill and visa fees. I spent some 14 years in the sector, so I know and understand it. I also understand that it is now entirely different from how it was then.
	My hon. Friend's other point is important in the context of the points system and the five-year plan. There is a separate tier for students. There is a far stronger accreditation system, rather than the simple flick-switch that caused some of the early difficulties that the hon. Member for North Thanet mentioned, where an institute is good or bad with nothing in between—no gradation, no notion of its past experience or anything else. There are also the elements to improve decision making. Those issues go to the heart of how to move on and to improve the welcome for overseas students.
	We are seeking to address all the other elements that are difficult for the sector through the joint education task force and close working with Universities UK and others, including, it is often forgotten, the FE sector. Therefore, I do not accept many of the premises that have been put forward. It must be about making decision making better, rather than hanging on to an appeals process that often means that the appeal is heard, if one is lucky, some two and a half years down the line.

Evan Harris: I think the Minister fairly reflects the disagreement in the Standing Committee about whether the high proportion of appeals that were won by applicants was due to poor decision making or new factors coming in. However, I think the point was made in Committee that when appeals go in, the papers are supposed to be collected by the entry clearance manager, who has the opportunity to reverse a decision that was made on the basis of incomplete information. When the manager does not do that, there has been a second opportunity, with all the information the appeal has, for that to be corrected, so the point still stands about poor decision making overall.

Tony McNulty: I do not think that it does. I specifically refer to the 900 or 1,000 decisions that were looked at by the NAO, or whoever it was—if it was not the NAO, I apologise. That was done deliberately before a second sift, as I understand it, by the entry clearance manager. The paperwork that was initially submitted was examined. I absolutely accept that there are difficulties across the HE sector, but I do not accept, as I have said, that they are ultimately connected, simply put, to fee structures or to what we are doing on appeals. I cannot say loudly enough that the Government and the House, on a cross-party basis, will continue to work as closely as possible with the HE sector to ensure that those overseas students continue to get good service.
	I accept the point that was made by some hon. Members, who are not in their places any more, that it is about far more than the initial three or four-year experience of the overseas students. I happened to teach a number of people who were overseas students and who are still friends. There is that initial contact at, if one likes, elite level, but then there is contact at a more general level, and affection for the country where one did that initial study. None of that I refute in any way, but we think—in the context of the five-year plan, the points system and all the improvements that we are trying to make in terms of ECO decision making—that the way forward that we are suggesting, with those elements rather than simply what is in the Bill, has merit for students.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I will do so for the final time on this point because I want to cover other elements without boring the House with this for the rest of the afternoon.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister has accused Conservative Members in Committee and on the Floor of the House of being disingenuous, but he should take into account the report from the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which looked at, among other things, the quality of initial decision making in the Home Office. It wrote in its recommendations:
	"There are significant flaws in Home Office practice at the stage of initial decision making"—
	so methinks he doth protest too much. He is not taking it on the chin and dealing with it, but sweeping it under the carpet.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely not, otherwise we would not be introducing the new points system and investing heavy resources in the entire decision-making process. We would not be doing all that if I were being entirely smug and complacent, saying that every decision made by the Home Office or any agent thereof was 100 per cent. correct. I accept that excellent work is being done throughout our posts internationally, but I accept, too, that there can and will be improvements. Part of that improvement will come about with the clarity afforded by the points system. I accept that that is the other half of the policy. I am not defending—I do not think I would—every decision made by the Home Office, but that is where the future lies in improving circumstances and conditions for overseas students and others who apply to work or to study here, not in holding on to the appeals system.

Keith Vaz: No one doubts the Minister's personal sincerity on the matter. He is a dedicated and hard-working constituency MP dealing with hundreds of thousands of immigration cases, but it is the system that needs changing, not the Minister and not the appeals system. He should defer these measures until he puts in place a package of measures that will deal with the issue of bad decision making, exactly as the Select Committee recommended. All he has to do is defer and get his package in place, and he will find that he does not need to make the changes that he is making today.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice, but we are doing that now. We are doing any number of things in terms of the ECO process. Admittedly, we are just starting the process, but all those things are happening now. We are enhancing the role of the independent monitor. He will be full-time, but it is essentially the same post, to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. I hope that he or she will be appointed in January. We are enhancing training, there is quality focus in UKvisas and we have objectives on best practice. This is within our international obligations. There are best practice reviews, more management resources for posts, quality of refusal notices—which are often a problem for many individuals and MPs—and we are working more closely with judges. There is any number of other elements: risk assessment, so we are informed far more readily on where risks are involved, communications, and general awareness, where we have suffered in the past. Those and other elements are happening now.
	I said this clumsily in Committee, as the hon. Lady reminded us, but I think that rather than delay matters to some far-off time, there is merit in looking at the notion that only when elements of the points system are introduced completely should the commencement order on appeal systems happen. The House will forgive me for not saying simply in terms that when the points system in all its entirety is introduced, only then will there be a commencement order on the lifting of appeals. I made it clear to the Standing Committee that there will be some elements of the points system that can be introduced earlier than mid-2007. Save for those elements that may be introduced earlier, including tier one and the highly skilled migrants programme, I will say that I am happy not to go down the route of introducing the provisions of the Bill that refer to appeals until the points system is in place. Those points were made in Committee and they are fair.
	I am trying to think of a way where, on the premise we get the independent monitor in place in January, he or she can help in that process, having grown into the role over a year when these resources are going in. There may be a commensurate impact both on allowed decisions and refusals, and more generally on the appeal rate, but it is not going to give us significant evidence to say yea or nay in any mechanistic sense. However, I will say, with the caveats that I have mentioned, that we will not do that with the appeal process until we get there.
	I will come back to money because it is in this huge pile here—not the money but the point that the hon. Lady made. There are some specifics to which I want to refer. Some go to the debate and some to other points raised. We have had, apparently, legal advice to the effect that, following the ECJ cases of Panyatova and Dorr and Unal, certain classes of persons claiming under European Community association agreements are entitled to rights of appeal under EC law. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) alluded to that point earlier. I will give him this note.
	Such persons have rights of appeal under current legislation, but those rights will be removed by the changes to appeal rights in the Bill. We may provide the necessary rights of appeal by using the necessary legislation without amending the Bill. In other words, this is still work in progress. I undertook to let the hon. Gentleman know about that. We may need to provide a right of appeal for non-EEA nationals who are primary carers of EEA children exercising treaty rights in the UK following a subsequent judgment. We think that we can cover that through section 92 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2000. I shall write more fully to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Evan Harris: I am grateful for the Minister's response and I hope to receive his letter in good time for consideration in the other place, particularly in respect of whether an amendment to the Bill or regulations would be satisfactory.

Tony McNulty: On the substantive elements in new clause 1, I shall disappoint the House in that the most compelling point made in Committee was about the issue of the twilight zone and criminality. New clause 1 addresses that matter, although it may be clumsy. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) clearly said that the provision affects only a limited number of people. On the appeal right process—non-suspensive appeals versus in-country appeals issue—it is an even more limited group. The points made about criminality in the new clause are limited to those who would exercise on a notice of removal and through the one-tier appeal their right to pursue an asylum or human rights claim. That is the very narrow pool of people who are affected in that regard.
	Let me be clear—those people will not get extensions to leave or the rights and benefits that leave accrues because, as a result of the position that they are in, they have no leave. There can be no leave to pursue. I do not want to reach the stage—there has been evidence of it over the past three, four or five years—of putting a perverse incentive in the core of a Bill under which those people, albeit small in number, queue up to make erroneous and capricious human rights and/or asylum claims simply because they know that it will elongate the right to work and the benefits that they may have had prior to the refusal. The debate about that has been interesting and I shall take some of the points into account—I do not accept the substance of points about students—but much of the argument was erroneous because of the small, narrow focus of people who are involved.

Evan Harris: If it is a small narrow group of people, there is presumably nothing wrong with preserving their right to exist and to carry on working while the appeal is being considered. I may want to say more about that in a few moments. I want to raise a point that I made in Committee, to which I do not believe the Minister has responded. What happens if a valid judicial review application is given against a decision not to extend leave? Do the rights continue under that application? The Minister indicated at column 148 of the Committee proceedings that he might write to me, but I am not clear that he has done so. Will he now take the opportunity to clarify it either by answering now or writing later?

Tony McNulty: I shall write. I do not think that the matter is particularly germane to new clause 1, but I will write in more general terms to the hon. Gentleman. His point—I hope that I have it right—is that the grant of leave pre-supposes that the holder should be able to stay while they bring any future appeal, but that is a pre-supposition that simply does not exist under law—in intent or otherwise. A grant of leave signifies that someone may stay in the UK while they meet the conditions on which the leave was granted. If that is a truism, I apologise to the House. There is no pre-supposition there, only the terms of the conditions that were granted. Once they no longer meet the requirement of the rules or any application for further leave, there is no basis on which they are entitled to stay here. That is a fair point.
	As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), if he would only read the Bill he would understand that his points about human rights are nonsense. How can the Bill be non-compliant with the European convention on human rights terms if all the terms of the Bill do not apply to those who make human rights applications and they are dealt with in a specifically different way under ECHR? When it comes to the interpretation of the ECHR in all its glory, on balance I trust the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) rather than the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, and I certainly do not trust the high street solicitor from Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I do not accept those points at all.

Evan Harris: Surely the Human Rights Act extends beyond those people who are making a claim under it. I urge the Minister—and, indeed, all of us—to await the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve. It was set up specifically to advise the House on these issues. The Minister would not then have to pick and choose between hon. Members on the advice that he wishes to follow.

Tony McNulty: Not in the context of this Bill, I say very strongly. Let me say in gentler terms that the hon. Gentleman's membership of the Joint Committee makes him no more an expert in human rights than membership of the House makes anyone a parliamentarian. That takes work—[Interruption.] I cheerfully strike for that position myself; it is not something that happens automatically when one walks through the Door.
	On the matter of family visits, much of it is not covered, but the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made a point about spouses. He will know, as he takes an interest in these matters, that I have just issued immigration rules that speak to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. There is a new category of civil partner now reflected in those immigration rules. We are looking into how best to fit it in on a family basis.
	I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it has been rather a rush through a very difficult area—

Simon Hughes: It would be helpful if the Minister could respond—either now or later—to the point made   by myself, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others about people entering the country as unaccompanied minors and then reaching 18. At the moment, they appear to be completely caught if the proposals go ahead.

Tony McNulty: That point was made in the context of amendment No. 33. I said clearly in Committee that unaccompanied minors reaching the age of 18 while still here are precisely one of the categories that we shall exempt—and the Bill makes clear provision to do that. I was also very clear in Committee that unaccompanied asylum-seeker children would fall into that category, but reserved the right to look at the issue in greater detail. Almost certainly, that element will be made exempt.
	I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am sorry if I have neglected to cover any points. We have had wide-ranging deliberations on the group of amending provisions, which are themselves very wide. New clause 1 is, as I said, a response to concerns raised by the Opposition in Committee. I invite my hon. Friends to resist all other amendments in their entirety, while commending hon. Members for their good spirit, good humour and mainly—if not completely—well-informed contributions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move on to new clause 2, with which it will be convenient to consider—[Interruption.]

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are correct, but I was advised that the vote on amendment No. 47 would come before we debated new clause 2. I accept that I may have misheard the advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman follows his list of selected amendments, it will be very straightforward to understand where any votes that I or other occupants of the Chair may allow will come. I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that we are proceeding in a satisfactory and orderly manner.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Detained Persons: National Minimum Wage

'(1)After section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (removal centre: rules) insert—
	(2)   "153A Detained persons: national minimum wage
	A detained person does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of work which he does in pursuance of removal centre rules."
	(2)   After section 45A of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) (exemptions from national minimum wage: persons discharging fines) insert—
	(2)"45B   Immigration: detained persons
	Section 153A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (persons detained in removal centres) disqualifies certain persons for the national minimum wage.".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32.

Tony McNulty: I, of course, never ever doubt your guidance in respect of our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Someone just called me a creep, but I am sure that you will admonish them.
	This is an interesting new clause. I hope that we will not get sidelined by issues that are not relevant, so that we can focus on those that are. There is a strong body of opinion that holds that paid activity should be available, on a voluntary basis, for people in immigration removal centres. This new clause works to that effect.
	At the moment, detainees in immigration removal centres do not have the opportunity to undertake paid work of any description. Despite the presence of educational and other activities in removal centres, many non-governmental organisations have established that the absence of paid activity can lead to boredom and frustration among detainees. That is harmful to their well-being, and that of the entire institution, and contributes directly to control and order problems.
	Paid activity is generally accepted as a necessary component of the activities provided to individuals in custody. It benefits the individuals concerned by giving them additional constructive and purposeful activity with which to occupy their time. As a direct result, it plays a key role in helping to maintain order.
	The absence of paid activity for immigration detainees, with the potentially adverse consequences for their well-being and for removal centre security, has been highlighted by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and by the prisons and probation ombudsman. Both have recommended that the current position should be remedied.
	In order to provide opportunities for detainees in removal centres to participate in paid activity, we need to exempt them from the national minimum wage. Detainees may be regarded as "workers" for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 if they perform paid activity of any sort, and would therefore be entitled to receive the national minimum wage. That would not be viable financially, nor reflect the true economic value of the work likely to be carried out, which is likely to be remedial and assistive. "Assistive" is the correct word in this context, but nevertheless I apologise for using it. The current position has prevented detainees from being given opportunities to undertake paid activity. We need to change that.

Neil Gerrard: I understand the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister has given for allowing detainees to undertake paid work, and that requests have been made to that effect. However, detention centres are often run by private contractors who have not always earned the most sparkling reports from the prisons inspectorate. I am worried that detainees will end up being used as cheap labour. Will my hon. Friend say how that will be prevented?

Tony McNulty: That is an entirely fair point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to get to it later, as I develop my remarks.
	Prisoners who undertake paid work would do so on the basis of an exemption from the national minimum wage in section 45 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. There is no similar exemption for immigration detainees in removal centres, and that is what we want to remedy. Paradoxically, individual detainees held in prisons are, by default, covered by the exemption for prisoners. That means that an immigration detainee incarcerated temporarily or otherwise in the prison estate is covered by the exemption for prisoners and could do paid work. In contrast, that person could not do paid work on transfer to the removals estate. The exemption created by this new clause would therefore remove that anomaly and bring detainees in removal centres in line with people held in prisons.
	It is important to note that all paid activity would be entirely voluntary and provided in addition to the various educational, sporting and recreational activities offered to detainees at present. Detainees would be encouraged to participate, just as they are in relation to other activities, but in no way would they be compelled to carry out the work. Detainees who chose not to participate in paid activity would continue to receive any allowances due to them under the removal centre incentive schemes.
	Work opportunities provided to detainees are likely to be of two main types. The first type would be the "traditional" custodial activities such as light cleaning, kitchen assistance, laundry work and gardening. However, I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, and assure the House that contractors would not be allowed to bid for such work on the basis that detention centre internees would be used. That will not be allowed to happen.
	The second type of paid work would include activities organised by charitable or voluntary groups, for which detainees would receive direct financial reward for participation. Detainees would not engage in commercial work of any description, and I hope that that answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow directly.
	This measure is principally intended to enhance detainee welfare, with the consequential benefits for removal centre security. It will ensure that the existing range of activities available in removal centres can be complemented by paid activity, which has well-established benefits for those in custody.
	As I said in connection with the previous group of amendments, I shall end my introductory remarks there, and respond later to points raised in the debate.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not think that we need detain the House for too long on Government new clause 2, but I am surprised that it should be introduced at this late stage. No explanation, other than the one that the Minister has just delivered at the Dispatch Box, has previously been given for the change, although it is true that an anomaly does exist in respect of people detained in the prison estate and those detained in other establishments. That is the anomaly that the new clause addresses.
	The report into the Yarl's Wood detention centre made it clear that we need to look at what happens to people who are detained. That is all the more important, given that the Government's five-year strategy for asylum and immigration states that increasing use of detention is planned, especially in the context of the removal of failed asylum seekers. However, the Minister must answer a few questions relating to the new clause.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked a valid question in his intervention. At present, the UK has nine immigration removal centres. Most are run by private companies, but three are run by the prison service. It is important to understand how the private companies will be instructed to manage a work regime in the centres, as the Minister has made it clear that that regime will be intrinsically different from the practice in prisons and on the prison estate as a whole. What instructions will the private companies be given about running the work regime in their centres?
	Detainees are not prisoners. The Minister knows that people may be detained for a variety of reasons. Most are detained because they are about to be removed from the UK, or because their asylum claims are being dealt with through the fast-track process, so I am not entirely sure how useful the provision will be, especially given that the average stay in a detention centre is between seven and 10 days. That said, earlier this year, persons were recorded as being in detention in the UK for a year or more, solely under Immigration Act powers: 70 had been detained for a year or more, 45 of whom were asylum seekers. That statistic is staggering enough, but 125 people had been detained for more than six months but less than a year, of whom 95 were asylum seekers, and 150 people were detained from four to six months and 150 from three to four months. Purposeful activity or a work regime may be envisaged for those individuals, but the idea needs to be fleshed out and cannot simply be presented to the House in the form of the new clause.
	The proposals smack to me of the Minister envisaging that those individuals could be held in detention centres for a long time. When we were considering other aspects of the proposals, I noticed that a detention centre manager considered—especially in relation to reports about the Yarl's Wood centre—that the sort of work that could be done should be connected to the resettlement of the individual, particularly if resettlement could reasonably be supposed to be in the UK. But the Minister conveniently missed out that point by referring to light cleaning and a little cooking and domestic work at the prison.
	My last point relates to the structuring of the regime as regards payment. The average rate of pay for employed prisoners is £8 a week, but the Prison Service sets its own minimum rate, which is currently £4 a week. Each prison is allowed to set its own pay rate. Does the Minister envisage that each detention centre will be allowed to set its own rates and, if so, at what level does he expect them to be?
	That is all I want to ask at this stage, but I reiterate to the Minister that, given the spirit of our conduct of the proceedings, I would have expected a new clause of this nature to be accompanied by an explanatory document, at least for members of the Committee, rather than relying on the Minister's slightly cursory introduction—[Interruption.] The Minister is holding up a letter, but I am afraid that it has not reached me. I do not know what the date of the letter is, but we had similar arguments in Committee when letters were sent out the day before a sitting. I explained then that, like many Members, I have an arrangement whereby my post is sent to my constituency to be dealt with initially, so although the Minister may hide behind the letter that he has the privilege of holding up, it has not reached my desk and it has obviously not reached the desk of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).

Tony McNulty: I am not hiding behind the letter, and I apologise profusely to members of the Committee if they have not received it. I ensured that on 10 November anything remotely new in terms of amendments tabled was circulated as a courtesy to the Committee, with explanations—albeit brief ones. I apologise if the letter was not received in Amersham or in central London, but that was certainly my intention.
	Notwithstanding, with respect, the rather picky points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the detail for each detention centre, I hope that the substance of the new clause is supported. There is substantive evidence— in the broad academic sense and from the ombudsman and the prisons inspector, who has investigated detention and removal centres—that people occupied on a voluntary basis are far better served individually. That deals in part with the hon. Lady's point about resettlement either in the UK, if that is how things pan out, or in the person's country of origin. That option must be good.
	I am happy to share with the House and members of the Committee how that will unfold in substance, removal centre by removal centre—

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister write to me?

Tony McNulty: Yes, and I shall deliver the letter by hand.
	Earlier, I deliberately concentrated on new clause 2, but I shall now turn to the Government amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 deal with local authority provision of section 4 accommodation, and I think they are straightforward.
	A point was raised about whether changes in non-compliance consequences were administrative or legislative. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) spent some time on that point in Committee, and I think that amendment No. 32 makes it clear that the Government are willing to concede that the consequences of non-compliance should be set out clearly in immigration rules and not be provided for administratively. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman was after and we have duly responded.

Evan Harris: The Minister is correct to say that amendment No. 32 covers what we were seeking. I am grateful to him for that amendment. I also recognise he has dealt with a problem by introducing amendment No. 30, which relates to section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The question that has not been answered is whether section 4 support—non-accommodation support—must be given in vouchers or whether it can be given in cash. He did not answer that in Committee or in a parliamentary question to him. If he would undertake to write to give a definitive answer about whether there is a statutory bar on paying cash or whether it is just his wish, the Liberal Democrats would certainly be very grateful.

Tony McNulty: I shall happily write to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for his comments on the amendments in this group. I hesitate to say that I will hand deliver any response to him because I have enough to do without doing a poor impersonation of Postman Pat or a member of the Communication Workers Union. With all those frivolous comments put to one side, I commend Government new clause 2 and the Government amendments to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on Marketing of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Maize, the Ayes were 216, the Noes were 73, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 1, line 3, leave out clause 1.—[Dr. Evan Harris.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 270.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 2, line 36, leave out Clause 4.—[Mrs. Gillan.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 272.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Entry Clearance

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 3, line 32, at end insert—
	'(2)   For section 23(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (monitoring refusals of entry clearance) substitute—
	"(1)   The Secretary of State must appoint a person to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where, as a result of section 88A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) (entry clearance: non-family visitors and students), an appeal under section 82(1) of that Act may be brought only on the grounds referred to in section 84(1)(b) and (c) of that Act (racial discrimination and human rights).".'.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Abandonment of Appeal

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 5, line 18, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 21 and add—
	'(4A)   An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (subject to subsections (4B) and (4C)).
	(4B)   Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground relating to the Refugee Convention specified in section 84(1)(g) where the appellant—
	(a)   is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding 12 months, and
	(b)   gives notice, in accordance with any relevant procedural rules (which may include provision about timing), that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
	(4C)   Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground specified in section 84(1)(b) where the appellant gives notice, in accordance with any relevant procedural rules (which may include provision about timing), that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.'.—[Andy Burnham.]

Clause 14
	 — 
	Penalty

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 28, after 'employ', insert
	'for more than 15 hours in any one week'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 9, in page 6, line 31 [Clause 14], leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 36.
	No. 10, in page 6, line 40 [Clause 14], leave out from 'he' to end of line 41 and insert
	'took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.'.
	No. 11, in page 7, line 10 [Clause 14], leave out '14' and insert '28'.
	No. 12, in page 7, line 14 [Clause 14], at end insert—
	'(g)   state the steps which an employer must take to avoid a further breach in relation to any employee.'.
	No. 13, in page 7, line 25 [Clause 14], leave out paragraph (e).
	No. 14, in page 7, line 37 [Clause 15], leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 15, in page 8, line 17 [Clause 16], at end insert—
	'(d)   make such orders as to costs as it deems appropriate.'.
	No. 16, in page 10, line 18, leave out Clause 21.

Humfrey Malins: We move on to the part of the Bill that deals with rights and duties of employers, and in particular to clause 14, which imposes the somewhat novel concept of a civil penalty on a person who employs a person subject to some immigration control. It is in connection with the general theme of the civil penalty that I introduce amendments Nos. 8 to 16. I hope that we will be permitted to divide the House on amendment No. 10 at the appropriate moment. My remaining amendments are essentially probing measures.
	The problem of illegal working is acute. The strict liability criminal offence introduced by section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 dealt with it to some extent, but the problem with that legislation is that very few prosecutions have occurred. It is well known that hundreds of thousands of people are probably working illegally, but only 29 people have been prosecuted under the 1996 Act since 1997, and only eight or nine of them were found guilty.

Philip Hollobone: Illegal immigrants working in the Kettering constituency are a serious problem. I have tabled written questions to the Home Office, the answers to which revealed that no employers have been prosecuted in Kettering for employing illegal workers.

Humfrey Malins: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. I visited his constituency some months ago, so I know that the matter, which he takes particularly seriously on behalf of his law-abiding constituents, is a problem in his area. I am not surprised to learn that no one has been prosecuted. As a general principle, it is all very well to introduce new criminal penalties, but the problem is often the lack of enforcement of the existing law.
	The civil penalty introduced by clause 14 is a new concept, but I am troubled by the fact that we know very little about the Secretary of State's plans. For example, the minimum and maximum penalties are not stated in the Bill. I have heard a rumour that the maximum per worker will be £2,500, although perhaps the Minister will confirm that figure in due course. Maximum fines and penalties are always set out in criminal statute, so it is disappointing not to have that information. Likewise, the contents of the penalty notice referred to in clause 14 are left for us to guess at. The documents that employers must see and the steps that they must take are, again, not specified, and they will be decided later.
	The Government promised to consult employers' groups and small businesses during the passage of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will give us the result of those consultations in his response.
	Nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in this country and how many of them are working, but it is a fair conjecture that if there are, as is generally agreed, well in excess of 500,000 illegal immigrants, it is very likely that a great number of them are working illegally. Does the Minister have any idea how many such persons are working illegally in this country?
	Will the Minister specifically deal with enforcement of the civil penalty? How will it be enforced in practice and by whom? Will it be a matter for the police, local authorities or Home Office officials? Who will be tasked, which is not a word that I like, with enforcement? It is all very well to introduce a civil penalty, but enforcement is a critical point.
	The Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee has had something to say over the past few years about illegal working, which it has pointed out can have a particularly pernicious effect on community relations and an unfair impact on the legally employed work force. The Committee has been critical of the Government for their failure to prosecute under the criminal sanctions for employing illegal workers. If the criminal law has not worked, what is so magical about the new civil penalty?
	Amendment No. 8 would insert the words
	"for more than 15 hours in any one week".
	It is intended to draw to the Minister's attention the problem that may arise for employers in relation to part-time or seasonal employees or one-off workers who do a particular job that may last only a day but are nevertheless employed. Short-term working in catering and the tourism industry should also be addressed positively by the Minister when he responds.
	I have a very good friend called Philip Walters, who lives in Dorset and is much involved in local life there. He reports to me that in his county—I think that it is the same throughout the country—a significant number of people are employed by farmers on very short-term contracts. For example, strawberry pickers may be employed for only one day and paid food for their troubles. Farmers are completely reliant upon that kind of labour. It would be unfair of the Government to expect every farmer to ask every strawberry picker for the appropriate identity documents, employment documents, and so on, and to keep photocopies.
	My concern is mainly on behalf of individual employers, not so much companies. I am worried that innocent individuals will be caught—people who employ gardeners and cleaners who work for perhaps no more than 10 hours a week at the most. I put 15 hours in my amendment because I thought that that was reasonable and would enable the Minister to respond fully on the issue of part-time workers. Such individuals face a penalty under the clause—there is no doubt about that. Is it right to impose on an individual who employs one or more persons for fewer than 15 hours a week the bureaucracy, red tape and burdens that we find in clause 14, leaving them, quite unnecessarily, with penalties and notices to pay?
	Hotels, restaurants and other entertainment enterprises are often completely reliant on taking full advantage of seasonal peaks in demand. This measure may dramatically reduce their flexibility, which is one of the most significant advantages that small firms have over their larger competitors, and in effect punish those who experience an economic need for labour. The Government say that they support enterprise, small businesses, diversity and flexibility, but their failure to exempt part-time workers, in particular, could heap even more red tape on to businesses.
	The Minister will tell us that he has consulted various bodies—and so have I. The end result is that I have received comments from several leading bodies that are very worried about the general problems that they will face. The CBI welcomes the clause on the criminal effects but says that
	"civil penalties pose more problems than they create solutions"
	and that if
	"the primary aim of the measures in the bill is the prevention of abuse, it is correct to focus on those who offend wilfully and/or repeatedly."
	I believe that there is force in what the CBI goes on to say:
	"The introduction of civil penalties for negligent employers . . . is a distraction. We are concerned that the difficulty of taking enforcement actions against true rogue employers will lead to a perverse incentive to target legal firms who employ legitimate migrants and may make the occasional mistake. The introduction of civil penalties for negligent employers may present enforcement officers with an "easy win".

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an employer who is minded to employ people illegally will also be well disposed to the notion of hiding behind the veil of incorporation in its various guises, and that that would be exceptionally problematic in regard to recovering civil penalties?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—there is of course a corporate criminal offence set out in the Bill—and he might wish to develop it himself in the course of the debate.
	The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, a much-respected body, also has concerns about the provisions. It has consulted businesses, and has registered on behalf of many of them concerns about the provision for a civil penalty. A problem that it has identified—perhaps the Minister will address it directly—is that the Government are almost asking employers to become
	"'enforcers' of immigration control and that the threat of civil penalties as well as the requirement to repeatedly check documents will act as a disincentive to employers hiring foreign nationals, including those who are 'documented' and ethnic minorities."
	So a lot of genuine people who have a full right to work could find themselves—for completely understandable reasons—accidentally discriminated against. They would therefore suffer as a result. When the Minister tells us about his consultations with the CBI and other business organisations, I am sure that he will be able to address those concerns.
	The provisions would result in an even greater burden being placed on smaller businesses, which should not be expected to act as a continuing watchdog on behalf of the Government. Amendment No. 8 sets out an exemption for the employers of part-time workers. Its purpose is to ask the Minister please to be very cautious before placing unnecessary burdens on small employers who employ people part-time or just for one-off jobs, because they would be covered by the civil penalty.
	Amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment that proposes to leave out clause 14(1)(b). This proposal would not place quite such a burden on the employer as the existing one. The employer would be subject to a penalty if he employed someone who had not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK, but would not face a civil penalty if, for example, the person whom he had employed had leave but it had expired and there was a possibility of its being renewed. The Minister may remember that this issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who always takes a great interest in these matters. The Government's response at that time, though helpful in part, was incomplete. That links up with my point on that amendment involving the nature of the documentation, which the employer will have to read and understand. Some of those documents are complex.
	I am going to say to the Minister something that may trouble him a little. I have read that those employers who are concerned that the penalty provision might impact on them can phone an employers' helpline—a hotline of sorts for employers—to get the fullest possible advice as to what they should and should not do, and how they should approach individual employment cases. The parallel with the immigration hotline, which is used by many of my hon. Friends and Members across the House to get answers on immigration matters, is interesting. I want the Minister to tell us in his winding-up speech whether the employers' helpline—or it is a hotline?—exists. Will he give us its telephone number? I have a number in front of me, but something tells me that it might be more appropriate for him to talk to us about this, just in case I have the wrong one. I think there is such a helpline and that it will be useful for employers.
	Amendment No. 10 is the one about which it is fair to say I feel the strongest. Clause 14(3) says:
	"An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements".
	Amendment No. 10 would introduce a few words giving the employer an excuse if he
	"took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements".
	As we are hammering employers under this provision, if they have taken reasonable steps, they should have some form of excuse. That is the principal amendment to which I shall speak. It is, I think, linked with amendment No. 12.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) tabled a not dissimilar amendment in Committee, hoping thereby to ease the position of the innocent employer who may have made an innocent mistake. It was a pro-business amendment, so we were sorry, but not surprised, that the Government did not take it on board at that stage; nor have they tabled their own amendment today to ameliorate the position of employers. In tabling that amendment, my hon. Friend expressed his concern—and that of others, including the CBI—about that burden.
	In Committee, the Minister indicated that the clause would be watered down. He did not use those words, but suggested that it would be shown to be more employer friendly by a code of practice, which would apparently offer a more lenient approach to first-time transgressors. I do not know exactly what that means. If first-time transgressors are not to be penalised under this civil measure, let us hear it. If the Minister will have discretion not to penalise first-time transgressors, employers have no reason to be comfortable, because they simply will not know their fate. I hope the Minister can respond on that point.
	Prescribed requirements, which are not defined although the employer has to comply with them, mean inspection of documents. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of the immigration world realises that we are now entering a minefield. Picture yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any of us here, running a small business taking on labour. Then, one asks to see certain documents. Bearing in mind that many documents that are not real seem to pass the test with our immigration officials and those at airports, I do not see how the innocent employer will spot them. Did you know, Mr.   Deputy Speaker, that it is a piece of cake in Lithuania to wander along and buy yourself a Lithuanian passport, which gives you everything that you need to come into this country? Did you know that it is a piece of cake in Italy and Greece—I hasten to say that I have not done it, but I know it to be true—to get hold of a Greek or Italian identity card and wander into this country on that basis? Finally, I am not sure that employers are expected to know that there is a terrific trade of Brazilians entering Portugal and getting hold quite easily of Portuguese identity and other documents, and then wandering around the EU, not to mention this country. The notion that expertise must be put into the mind of the employer is illusory.
	My amendment No. 11 deals with a separate issue, and I hope that I have expressed fairly and opened up a debate on the burdens on employers, the concerns of business and the lack of detail that we have had so far. The clause states that a penalty notice must "specify a date". The date specified in the notice—goodness knows who sends it or has found out that an employer has an illegal migrant as an employee—is meant to be
	"at least 14 days after the date specified in the notice as the date on which it is given, before which the penalty must be paid".
	The amendment changes that from 14 days to 28 days. It is quite important—I know that the Minister is taking the point on board—that a reasonable period is given to the employer to pay the penalty. We do not know what the penalty will be, and have no idea who will judge how much it will be. If it is a Home Office official who decides on the penalty, such an official will have no idea about an employer's wealth, means or ability to pay and will, I presume, just pick a figure out of the air, which seems idiotic. It seems right, particularly as people are sometimes away for two or three weeks, that a reasonable period of grace should be given for the employer to pay the penalty.
	On the question of the financial means of the person in receipt of a penalty, I see nothing in the Bill to tell me that the level of the penalty will be adjusted according to the means of the person who must pay it. In our courts, however, defendants' means are carefully examined—they carefully fill in a form about whether they are on benefits or X pounds a week. As a result, the courts set the fine at a level compatible with the defendant's means. Where is that provision in the Bill, and where is the prospect of the Minister allowing a little more time? If one is fined in a magistrates court, one is invariably given, if one asks for it, 28 days to pay. That is why I have suggested that 28 days be allowed in relation to the penalty notice.
	Amendment No. 12 follows on from my amendment No. 10 and again seeks to lessen the burden on the employer.
	Amendment No. 13 asks us to leave out paragraph (e), which requires
	"action to be taken at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."
	Not only will a burden be placed on an employer at the beginning of the employment, when he must inspect and deal with certain documents, but he will be required to do the same
	"at specified intervals or on specified occasions during the course of employment."
	Neither the specified intervals nor the specified occasions are quantified. We have had informal guidance from Ministers, but now that we have reached the Report stage, it would be helpful if this Minister went into more detail.
	Does the Minister think that the penalty clause is absolutely necessary? Existing legislation covers the employment of persons and the need to examine their documents. Will he comment on the workings of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which require agencies that supply workers to carry out checks to confirm workers' identities? Is that invariably done, what pitfalls exist, and have any measures been taken against agencies that have not dealt with the matter properly?
	Will the Minister also comment on the workings of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which was intended to protect workers in the agriculture and shellfish sectors by requiring labour providers to register and apply for licences to act as gangmasters? Given that plenty of checks and regulations are already in force, and given that although there are probably 200,000, 300,000 or 400,000 illegal workers in the country—no one can gainsay that—only about 20 have been prosecuted in the last eight years, one wonders whether the real problem is that of enforcing existing law properly.
	Amendment No. 14 seeks to omit clause 15(3)(c). It is merely a probing amendment. Paragraph (c) says that a notice of objection must be given "in the prescribed manner". If someone wished to object to a civil penalty, what would the "prescribed manner" be? The question troubles me a bit, because it raises the possibility that a notice would be deemed faulty because it had not been given in the prescribed manner. If a defendant wishes to appeal against a conviction or sentence in court, he or she is not required to provide a notice of appeal in a prescribed manner; it is necessary merely to file the notice. If it is on the back of an envelope and reads "I wish to appeal against the sentence because I thought it was very tough", that is good enough.
	Amendment No. 15 relates to appeal against the penalty. I thought for a moment that the Minister was asking me to give way, but it seems that he is not— [Interruption.] I am told that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has just woken up. It is good to see him in his place.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not woken up. I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for the last 30 minutes, as has the whole House. I just wish he would get on with it, as the business is guillotined.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order for the Chair, but I can confirm what the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has said.

Humfrey Malins: I hesitate to address the hon. Member for Leicester, East as Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he seems to be instructing me to move at a pace that suits him. Many of us have genuinely fallen asleep in the Chamber during his deliberations since 1983.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman will not fall asleep when I start speaking.

Humfrey Malins: No.
	I would like to insert under amendment No. 15 a provision whereby, following an appeal, a court can make an order as to costs. That is important. Can a court hearing an appeal make an order for costs at present under this Bill? If the appeal is vexatious and rubbish, it is undoubtedly sensible for the court to order costs against the appellant. However, if the appeal is full of merit and the Secretary of State has behaved disgracefully, it seems proper that the court can order costs against the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will respond on that matter.
	I had the feeling that the hon. Member for Leicester, East was in the Chamber to hear my speech, but I have suddenly realised that he is here only to make his own.
	Amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment, by which I seek to omit clause 21. I ask the Minister kindly to tell us a little more about the position of a body corporate and the criminal offence that applies in relation to a body corporate. We are anxious to know who would be prosecuted. Take the case, for example—I mentioned it in Committee—of a club. A club run by its members is capable of being criminally prosecuted under this measure. That is entirely different from a big organisation. It is voluntary for a start. Take a sports club or a small business where there are four partners, one of whom is a junior partner who has some responsibility for an aspect of the employment but no authority to overrule the other partners, who take a particular view about the employment of the individual concerned. I am anxious that the net in criminal terms does not extend to cover too many people.
	Those are my amendments. The Minister has much to justify. I am hopeful that he will accept amendment No. 10, which is the one that we most want to test the opinion of the House on. Among my other amendments, I hope that he will be kind enough at least to agree that those who have a penalty imposed on them should get 28 days, rather than 14.

Keith Vaz: I came into the Chamber determined to vote with the Opposition on amendment No. 8 but, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I have decided to vote with the Government because they do have a case and there are concerns about that amendment. I am certain that, with the length of time that he has taken to put his views forward, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with those concerns. Let me raise my concerns in a much shorter time to give other right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to put their points to the Minister.
	I am concerned about these proposals because they will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minority community. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that the measure will create a burden on small businesses when they have to keep checking immigration documents. It will also create a burden on the immigration service and the police. We have had legislation on immigration, asylum and nationality where the Government have told us, in good faith, that they felt that it would deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but sadly that has not happened. We are again legislating because we think that we will solve the problem, but we could end up not solving it and just creating greater burdens.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman is correct to identify that the immigration service does not want to have more rules and regulations to enforce. Is not it the case that the service is already overstretched and cannot enforce its existing powers?

Keith Vaz: I agree. There are more than 220,000 cases that the service has not dealt with. I went to visit the Arnhem centre in Leicester last Friday, where I looked at the appeals that come from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is such a huge burden on the IND, despite the appointment of the new director general, Lin Homer, whom I wish well. An extra burden of this kind will not help the system. After all, that is exactly what the Government said when they introduced—I think by regulation, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the new certificates of marriage that people had to obtain from the Home Office in order to go to the registry office to get married. At the time, we were told that the purpose was to make the system clearer. In fact, there is still a huge delay for people trying to get those certificates from the Home Office because there is a backlog. The purpose—the good purpose—for which they were introduced has not been realised because of the administrative problems created.
	First, I seek an assurance from the Minister that the provision will not create additional burdens, requiring additional resources, for the already overstretched immigration and nationality directorate. Secondly, to reiterate a good point that was made in an over-lengthy way by the hon. Member for Woking, what about consultation? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBI and employers organisations for small businesses, but what consultation has there been with communities, particularly with those who will be affected by what is happening?
	Has the Minister sought the views of the Commission for Racial Equality, which has been very clear in the statements it has made to Members of the House this week? I quote:
	"The CRE view is that civil penalties and repeat checks on certain employees subject to immigration control is not in the spirit of the Race Relations legislation, could be divisive within workforces, stigmatise workers, and potentially damage good race relations. We fear that the latest proposals may cause confusion, misunderstanding, and further cases of discrimination."
	The very body set up to deal with issues of discrimination is saying to the Government that before the measure is passed they should pause and consider what is being proposed, so it is important for the Minister to tell the House which organisations and community groups have been consulted and what research his Department has done.
	We know that proposals do not instantly emerge from the mind of the Home Secretary or the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and lead to immediate legislation. Ministers have had time to think about the proposals as the issue has been central to what the Government have been attempting to do for the past eight years. What is the evidence to support the measure? What information can the Minister give the House about that?
	My final point is about the need to ensure that people who are here illegally and readily own up to it are given some sort of decision about their status. Occasionally, although I am not saying that it happens often, people who have lived in this country illegally for a long time come to my constituency surgery, as I am sure they do to the surgeries of other Members, and admit that they have been in the country illegally. Some have had an extended holiday. A gentleman who came to see me only last week came for a holiday 10 years ago on a visitor's visa. He is still here, he has had three children and he is working illegally, but he wants to come clean. He wants to make the Home Office aware of the position, although I am not sure whether he wants an amnesty. My job as MP is to stand in his shoes and write to the appropriate Minister or officials. I have done that—as I have done for a number of people who have come to my surgery and want to admit to being here illegally. They want their status clarified, but the delay in dealing with their cases adds to the backlog and the wider delay in the system.
	We are all trying to find people who are working here illegally so that we can bring them to justice, and so that they can regularise their stay and either make an application to remain on some basis or leave the country and make an application to come back. We need assurances from the Minister that his staff that resources in the Home Office are sufficient to cope with the applications when they are made.
	If the Minister can reassure me on those three points, I will happily vote with the Government on this measure. I remain worried, however, that in the 18 years during which I have been a Member of the House we have had 10 Bills on immigration, asylum and nationality. Every Government, of every hue, have said that the next piece of legislation will solve the problem, but that has not happened. I hope that the Minister is confident that these proposals will make a difference to the Government's immigration policy.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall not detain the House because, ever the optimist, I remain hopeful that we might still get to the final group of amendments, which I consider to be very important. However, I want to share a few thoughts about illegal working, and I commend the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for tabling these amendments. They allow us to discuss and place on the record some of our concerns about what is a real problem in many sectors of modern commerce and industry. Illegal working is a problem for all of us. It has a pernicious effect on community relations and leaves many people in different industries without proper protection or remuneration. If it is allowed to flourish, it places those who play by the rules at a real disadvantage.
	The hon. Member for Woking said that most of his amendments are probing, and I think that that approach is correct, but he added that he wanted to press amendment No. 10 to a vote. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that his resolution to support him had been tested, but mine has not. I remain resolute and I will support the amendment in a Division. Yet again, part of the reassurance offered by the Government is that a code of conduct will be put in place, but so far I am not aware that one has been produced. The Government say something similar increasingly often, but such statements provide no reassurance. Effectively, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
	The concept of civil penalties is superficially attractive, although I remain worried about some of the enforcement problems. What is the position of bodies corporate in relation to partnerships? In Scots law, partners are deemed to be jointly and severally liable, but it seems to me that the Bill could cause real injustice in that regard.
	Moreover, the people most likely to be caught and to end up paying are those small business men or sole traders who have made some error that has brought them within the jurisdiction of the civil penalty scheme. However, they will not necessarily be the real villains of the piece. The real villains will find a means of escape—no doubt without much difficulty—through devices such as the veil of incorporation. I am therefore worried that the proposed scheme will not tackle the mischief.
	Amendment No. 10 would reduce the test for establishing a defence and require traders to show that they had taken "reasonable steps" to comply with employment requirements. That seems sensible, and Liberal Democrat Members support it.

John Greenway: I listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) with great interest. He and I entered the House at the same time and in our early days here worked together in the Home Affairs Committee. We looked at some of these matters then, and few of us can match his experience, given the ethnic make-up of his constituency and the many cases with which he has to deal. I am sure that what he said will have been of great value to the House.
	I want to deal with some of the issues that are under consideration in the Council of Europe's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, to which I was appointed earlier this year. They go right to the heart of the difficult question of the employment of irregular migrants. I concluded that what the Government propose in clauses 14 to 21—which the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr.Malins) address—namely, stronger criminal sanctions against employers who give work to irregular or illegal migrants, seems significantly out of step with the work of the Migration Committee and the advice it has received on future migration and employment trends.
	As colleagues who follow economic trends will be aware, Alan Greenspan estimated recently that there may be between 10 million and 11 million irregular migrants in work in the USA, without whom, he said, the performance of the US economy would be adversely affected, particularly in relation to the rate of inflation. I understand that it is two years since any prosecutions were pressed against employers in the USA.
	We know that irregular migrants are in work in the UK—the hon. Member for Leicester, East gave us one example. The clandestine nature of their employment can and does on occasion call into question the morality and ethical behaviour of their employers. On the other hand, some employers may unwittingly employ irregular migrants, especially through subcontractors in the agricultural sector or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, migrants who used false papers.

Keith Vaz: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If an employer is going through a busy period and needs to fill a vacancy, when people apply for the job the first question he asks is not, "Can I have a look at your passport?", but, "Are you able to do this job?" That is why people slip through.

John Greenway: Indeed. In the hon. Gentleman's community, he may know that the person in question has a wife and children to support, and I want to touch on the issue of the rights of a person in that situation.
	For the reasons that I have given, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is entirely right to try to amend the Bill as he proposes. It would be wholly wrong for us to treat the unscrupulous employer and the unwitting employer in exactly the same way, as the Bill would do. Yes, there is discretion about whether prosecutions are brought and there is discretion in the court, but if we are serious about regularising the position of illegal migrants, which is really what the hon. Member for Leicester, East was saying in his third point, it is counter-productive to penalise the very people who are most likely to know or learn about the irregularities and do something to address them.If our economy benefits from the employment of irregular migrants, we need to ask whether the prosecution of employers is justified, beyond their failure to meet employment laws and obligations. In the longer term, however, it is much more important for the House to address the interests of the migrants themselves.
	I listened with interest to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality when he introduced new clause 2 and discussed the question of there being no minimum wage for people in detention centres who work. He made his point extremely well; the questions relating to the right level of pay were interesting. He pointed out that people in detention centres have a choice about whether to work, but that if they choose to work they are not paid the minimum wage. I see his point of view, but those people are nevertheless irregular migrants—that is why they are in detention—yet they are being given the choice and the right to work.
	It may surprise some colleagues, as it certainly surprised me when the document arrived in my bundle of papers, that the Migration Committee is considering a report on the human rights of irregular migrants, which might include the right to work, or at least to accept employment. That is an extremely challenging concept. I have an open mind on the issue.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) serves on the Migration Committee with me, and we have had quite a good exchange of views on what many colleagues on both sides of the House would find a challenging concept. However, we must all address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. If someone with a wife and children has lived in this country for 10 years but is here illegally because he overstayed his holiday and is in a job, does he have a right to work or not? That is the question. People say no, but the very fact that that question is on the agenda indicates the direction of thinking on this policy.
	The Migration Committee has been given three different academic studies on the European convention on human rights, all of which conclude that irregular migrants must have some kind of rights. The better option is to regularise migrant workers because, without them, the long-term economic future of Europe, let alone this country, is in question. However, that is a debate for another day.
	All I would say is that if the rights of irregular migrants are as uncertain as many hon. Members and I think, we ought seriously to consider the extent to which the law—which is what the amendment is about—seeks to penalise, including by imprisonment, employers who offer work to irregular migrants, especially in circumstances where the employer has unwittingly employed such persons. Amendment No. 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, is entirely reasonable in those circumstances, and it would greatly strengthen and improve the Bill if the Government were to accept it.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents would not want the opportunity of debating these amendments to pass without my mentioning the very serious and growing problem of working by illegal immigrants in and around Kettering—a issue that I have raised with the Home Office in a number of written questions. I share the scepticism expressed by Labour Members about the need to introduce new rules and regulations without the enforcement of the current rules and regulations being nearly effective enough.
	The immigrant community in Kettering is not large. Perhaps 500 or so mainly Sikh people represent a long-established and well-respected minority ethnic community in Kettering. However, there is growing disquiet about the increasing number of illegal immigrants, many from the Indian subcontinent, who are finding their way to Kettering to work illegally in many of the local establishments. There is a well-established, if tortuous, route to gaining illegal entry into this country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) very graciously came to Kettering to hear the local residents' concerns about it.
	I should like to take this opportunity to invite the Minister to come to my constituency to explain to members of the Sikh community, employers, police officers, immigration officers and others how the proposed changes in the Bill will address the growing problem of illegal working in Kettering. Having heard the debate so far, I am afraid that, on behalf of my constituents, I remain extremely sceptical about whether the Bill will tackle the problem in the way that it ought to.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to hon. Members for the tone in which the debate has been conducted. We have had a proportionate and balanced debate on some very important issues. However, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, we have yet to consider some perhaps even more serious issues on Report, and it is right to devote as much time as possible to those issues. With the permission of the House, I will seek to deal not with every point that has been made, but with the substance of hon. Members' arguments and the assurances that they want.
	With that in mind, I hope that I can persuade the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—I know that he is a reasonable soul—that a vote on amendment No. 10 will not be needed. I genuinely believe that I can give him the assurance that he wants. The secondary legislation detailed in the Bill will achieve the effect of his amendment. I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland indicated that he would support the hon. Member for Woking in such a vote, but if the hon. Member for Woking is in the mood for doing deals, I can say that I may well be minded to accept amendment No. 11, the other amendment that he described as important because it would put more flexibility in the Bill. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and I are minded to say that the amendment is reasonable.
	Before I deal with the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, let me turn to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He talked about additional burdens on the immigration and nationality directorate and asked whether the enforcement activity would impact on other work. He also talked about consultation with the ethnic minority community about the impact of the measures and discussed the IND's ability to deal with overstayers.
	We are bringing forward the measures because the regime introduced by the Conservative party has failed to fulfil its intended function. In the nine years since that regime was introduced, some 17 prosecutions have been brought, but that is not to say that the IND has not carried out many more operations than that to detect illegal working and that it has not detected many more illegal workers than that during the course of its activity. The situation demonstrates the inadequacy of the current offence.
	The measures that we are introducing, especially the civil penalty scheme, will put a wider range of tools at the disposal of the IND, so it will not have to use such heavy-handed means to address the problem. The civil penalty scheme is a more measured and calibrated system through which the problem can be addressed without having to resort to criminal prosecutions in every instance. On my hon. Friend's point about consultation, a draft code of practice has been published to set out the steps that employers can take to ensure that they keep within race discrimination legislation.

Keith Vaz: I want the Minister to picture my constituency and areas such as East Park road and the Belgrave road. Every single person who is employed in every single factory on those roads is from the ethnic minority communities. Some are British born, some have acquired citizenship and others have indefinite leave. Does he accept that the measure will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minority community, and have an impact on those who are in this country legally because employers simply will not want to employ them?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right to raise such serious issues. I do not know his constituency anything like as well as he does, but I would guess that the vast majority of those people are British born and British passport holders, so there will be no requirement for employers to check their documentation. The draft code was published in October and I would encourage him to read it.

Keith Vaz: That is not the point. The Bill will allow those who have the power to go on fishing expeditions to find out which of those people are British citizens and individuals with indefinite leave—with the right to vote and work here—and which are not. The Bill will mean that people can start visiting factories and making checks, which will create more burdens.

Andy Burnham: The measures must be applied sensitively, which is why the draft code of practice sets out clearly the steps that should be followed to achieve that. The code makes what is acceptable clear to employers. We obviously want to ensure that there is consultation on the code of practice so that when it emerges in its final form, it will be a useful and practical document that will ensure that the scenario that my hon. Friend fears can be avoided. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the purpose of the measures is to deal with illegal working. The IND carries out illegal working operations now and will continue to do so; the clauses simply gives the IND proportionate tools to use against employers who fail to comply.
	The main point made by the hon. Member for Woking relates to amendment No. 10, in which he requests that reference be made in the Bill to employers who take reasonable steps to comply with the legislation. As he knows, secondary legislation will be required to bring into effect the clauses on employment. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the table in the draft code of practice that we have issued for the benefit of employers. He will see that it lays out clearly the practical steps that employers can take to ameliorate the size of any penalty. They can carry out a full check, which is defined, a partial check or no check at all. We have taken a balanced approach: the penalty varies in proportion to the extent to which an employer has taken steps to comply.
	The hon. Gentleman will also see that it will be possible for a first-time offender who showed good will and carried out some partial checks to avoid a penalty on the first occasion of being found in breach. I genuinely believe that the secondary legislation to support the clauses will fulfil the purpose of amendment No. 10 by laying out clearly the practical steps that people can take, and I hope that it reassures the hon. Gentleman that first-time offenders will not be clobbered. The penalty will vary according to how many times the employer has breached the provisions and the extent to which the employer has taken steps to tackle the problem.
	As I said, we are minded to accept amendment No. 11, which is sensible. It relates to the matters to be included in a civil penalty notice, specifically the Secretary of State's obligation under clause 14 to set a maximum period within which payment must be made. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the payment period specified in the notice from at least 14 days to at least 28 days. Clause 16 specifies that the period for bringing an appeal against a penalty will be 28 days and we intend that the maximum period for making objections under clause 15 will be the same. To accept amendment No. 11 is therefore logical.
	Amendment No. 8 would exclude part-time workers from the scheme. That would not be sensible as it would undermine the principles of the scheme, weaken it, and create a potential loophole in the legislation. Employers could employ an illegal worker on a part-time basis for up to 15 hours a week having carried out no checks at all. I do not believe that that is really what the hon. Gentleman wants. It would not be sensible to accept the amendment, nor amendment No. 9, which would effectively exempt overstayers from the illegal working provisions. To exempt overstayers would be a counter-productive step that would undermine the scheme. The hon. Gentleman may know that a high proportion of the people who are picked up during operations tend to be overstayers. The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. [Interruption.] He is chuntering away on the Opposition Front Bench about who will enforce the provision, and he has asked about robust documents. How about a national identity card? Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? That might be an easy way to ensure that employers could quickly verify whether or not the person had the right to work in the country. The hon. Gentleman might want to think about that before we conclude our deliberations.
	Other, less crucial points have been raised and Members have been able to have their say. I note the   support from the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for an amnesty for all illegal workers. I am not sure that that is the policy of the two contenders for the leadership of the Conservative party, but it is something that they might want to consider.
	I took the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, principally in relation to amendment No. 16, which is about liability within a company, especially for the knowingly employing offence. If we accepted the amendment, that would weaken our position because we would have to revert to common law to try to ascertain who was ultimately liable. That would not be satisfactory. People in positions of responsibility within a company have to take responsibility to ensure that their house is in order. It would not be right to make the provisions vague so that people could have further room for manoeuvre to try to avoid their obligations.
	I think that we should move on to the substantial matters that remain to be considered. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will be encouraged by what I have said and persuaded to accept my position on amendment No. 10, which will enable us to move straight on to the other matters that are to come before the House.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister, typically, has been extremely soothing and courteous. I was nearly lulled into accepting much of what he said. I thank him warmly for accepting amendment No. 11. My concerns remain, however, and I think that concerns remain on behalf of businesses, and small businesses in particular. It is my judgment that the defence of reasonableness should appear in the Bill, notwithstanding the Minister's kind words. It is because we feel so strongly about this matter and the need to put the provision in the Bill that we will put the issue to the vote.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 6, line 40, leave out from "he" to end of line 41 and insert
	'took reasonable steps to comply with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 274.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment made: No. 11, in page 7, line 10, leave out '14' and insert '28'.—[Mr. Malins.]

Clause 31
	 — 
	Passenger and Crew Information: Police Powers

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 14, line 38, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 14, line 41, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.
	No. 19, in page 15, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	'(a)   may be made orally or in writing, but if made orally shall be confirmed in writing within 48 hours'.
	No. 20, in page 15, line 19, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one month'.
	No. 21, in clause 32, page 15, line 45, after 'owner', insert ', captain'.
	No. 22, in clause 33, page 16, line 42, after 'section', insert '30'.
	No. 23, in page 17, line 2, at end insert—
	'(2A)   A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction on indictment in the Crown Court to a term of 2 years imprisonment or a fine or both.'.
	No. 24, in clause 37, page 19, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	No. 25, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'is likely to' and insert 'may'.

Humfrey Malins: I propose to make an extremely brief contribution on the amendments. I do not ask the Minister to deal with them at length, or at all, unless he feels it appropriate to do so, but I will be grateful if he is able to write to me.
	Clauses 31, 32, 33 and 37 touch on important issues with regard to the sharing of information, which must be seen against the backdrop of the need for doing so in the more dangerous world that we currently face. The Minister is aware of our 100 per cent. support for Government attempts to ensure that our country is safe, and he must never be in any doubt about that.
	The amendments are entirely probing. I tabled amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21 because I had hoped on several occasions in Committee to insert the word "captain" in relation to a ship.
	Amendment No. 19 would enable information required by a constable to be provided orally rather than in writing as long as it is confirmed in writing within 48 hours. There would be no harm in that. I am sure that the Minister will feel free to accept that sensible amendment.
	Amendment No. 22 suggests that a breach of clause 30, as well as of clauses 31 or 32, should be an offence. As the Bill stands, I cannot see that breaching clause 30 by not providing information to an immigration officer is an offence. Would such breaches be imprisonable offences?
	Amendment No. 24 would strengthen the provision on the disclosure of information for security purposes so that a person "shall", instead of "may" disclose information. Amendment No. 25 would reduce the test to thinking that that information "may", instead of "is likely to" be of use for a specified purpose.
	These are tidying amendments, none of which concerns matters of principle.

John Leech: I shall try to be even briefer than the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
	I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21. It seems sensible that the captain of a ship, who is likely to be in charge, should be the person responsible.
	On amendment No. 19, the hon. Gentleman is fully justified in saying that information could be given orally instead of in writing but put in writing within 48 hours.
	We support amendment No. 20, which would reduce the specified period for the requirement from six months to one month.
	I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman feels that amendment No. 22 is necessary. The provisions in clause 31(2) and (3) and clause 32(2) are restricted to police officers of superintendent or a higher level whereas under the amendment any immigration officer could be used.
	We do not support amendment No. 23 but we do support amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

Andy Burnham: I hope that I shall be even more brief than the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech). I understand that there is no objection in principle to the e-borders regime that we are introducing, or to the security benefits that we believe will flow from it. The issues raised in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking are essentially operational questions that we can deal with, and I shall write to him and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington to give them clarification on the points that they have raised. We shall not accept the amendments, but I will clarify the reasons why in my letter. I ask the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw his amendment.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I believe that several of my amendments have merit, but if I were to test the opinion of the House at this point, I would be in trouble with a number of people. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have raised and that he will write to me, because one or two of them have some merit. I repeat our general support for the Government in this matter. The Minister will also be pleased to know that I shall not have to deliver on the bet that I struck with him in private a few moments ago. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42
	 — 
	Accommodation

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 23, line 40, at end insert—
	'(1A)   In section 99(4) (expenditure) after "section" insert "4,".'.
	No. 31, in page 23, line 41, leave out
	'after "section" insert "4 or"'
	and insert
	'for "95" substitute "4, 95 or 98".'.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 47
	 — 
	Procedure

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 26, line 7, leave out from 'paid' to 'provide' in line 8 and insert ';
	and the rules referred to in subsection (1) may'. —[Mr. Dhanda.]

Clause 51
	 — 
	      Refugee Convention: Construction

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 28, line 1, leave out Clause 51.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 35, in page 28, line 2 [Clause 51], leave out subsection (1).
	No. 54, in page 28, line 5 [Clause 51], leave out from 'terrorism' to 'and' in line 6 and insert
	'where such acts amount to offences in UK law'.
	No. 55, in page 28, line 8 [Clause 51], leave out from 'terrorism' to end of line 9 and insert
	'where such acts amount to offences in UK law'.
	No. 36, in page 28 [Clause 51], leave out lines 26 and 27.
	No. 56, in page 28, line 26 [Clause 51], leave out from 'section' to end of line 27 and insert
	'20 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. )'.
	No. 26, in page 28, line 31, leave out Clause 52.
	No. 37, in page 28, line 32 [Clause 52], leave out subsection (1).
	No. 1, in page 28, line 35 [Clause 52], leave out 'satisfied' and insert 'sure'.
	No. 38, in page 28, line 37 [Clause 52], leave out 'that Act' and insert
	'the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61).'
	No. 39, in page 29, line 4 [Clause 53], leave out subsection (1).
	No. 2, in page 29, line 8 [Clause 53], leave out 'thinks' and insert 'is sure'.
	No. 40, in page 29, line 8 [Clause 53], leave out from 'State' to end of line 10 and insert
	'is satisfied that the person had done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—
	(a)   the United Kingdom, or
	(b)   a British Overseas Territory.'.
	No. 41, in page 29, line 23 [Clause 53], leave out 'not'.
	No. 42, in page 29, line 25 [Clause 53], leave out from 'person' to end of line and insert
	'had done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—
	(a)   the United Kingdom, or
	(b)   a British Overseas Territory.'.

Alistair Carmichael: I should tell the House that, barring anything earth-shatteringly revealing being said by the Minister on these amendments, it is my intention to divide the House on amendment No. 34 and, with your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, on amendment No. 37.
	Unfortunately, time is short, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am keen to hear the words of honeyed sweet reason that I know will drip from the Minister if he is given the opportunity. So, if I may seek the indulgence of the House, I shall assume a greater degree of prior knowledge of the provisions of article 1(F)(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention than had originally been my intention.
	I have chosen to focus on amendment No. 34 because it seeks the removal of clause 51. The other amendments relating to that clause seek to achieve much the same end, but by taking rather more circuitous routes. I suggest that amendment No. 34 is by some significant measure the most straightforward and, if I may venture to say so, elegant way of dealing with this issue.
	I cannot think of another example in which the discretion of the courts in construing articles in a convention has been fettered in the way set out in clause 51. The clause purports to define article 1(F)(c) of the convention, which concerns exceptions based on
	"acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
	I do not understand why the clause is necessary, and that view is shared by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
	In a briefing to me, the ILPA pointed out that the 1951 convention is an international convention in respect of which the international jurisprudence and UNHCR statements are relevant. The ILPA put it to me:
	"To purport to interpret it in statute is to fail to respect this jurisprudence and to usurp the role of judges in interpreting it."
	As ever, the Government seek to go much further than is necessary. The definition they want to import is much wider than is either necessary or desirable. I draw the attention of the House to clause 51(1)(b), which speaks of
	"acts of encouraging or inducing others to commit, prepare or instigate terrorism".
	A person may thereby be excluded from recognition as a refugee for acts that are not recognised in this country as crimes.
	The UNHCR handbook, which is part of the jurisprudence to be applied in construing this measure, says that article 1F(c)
	"is intended to cover in a general way such acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations that might not be fully covered by the two preceding . . . clauses."
	That refers to article 1F(a) and (b). The handbook continues:
	"Taken . . . with the latter, it has to be assumed, although this is not specifically stated, that the acts covered . . . must . . . be of a criminal nature."
	It is apparent from that, surely, that the definition employed by the UNHCR handbook is already very wide. The only limitation that seems to be in place is that the act complained of should constitute a crime. However, even beyond that exceptionally wide definition the Government seek to go.
	That, again, is the view of the ILPA. The Minister might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" He might also say that if the Liberal Democrats are agreeing with the ILPA, that is equally unsurprising, but I must bring it to the attention of the House that that is the view not only of the ILPA and the Liberal Democrats, but of the UNHCR. If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I would like to refer to a few of the objections that the UNHCR has brought to our attention.
	First, the UNHCR makes the point that clause 51 interprets article 1F(c)
	"out of its context, contrary to accepted rules of interpretation of a treaty under international law."
	Secondly, the UNHCR says that the clause
	"introduces an interpretation . . . which is incompatible with the accepted and long-standing interpretation of Article 1 F(c)."
	The UNHCR essentially makes the same points as the ILPA, as well as further statements, and the UNHCR briefing says that
	"bearing in mind the interrelationship between the three subsections of the provision, it is important that Article 1 F be interpreted and applied holistically. As presently drafted, Clause 51 is a piecemeal attempt to interpret one subsection of a provision which should be read as a whole and in context. UNHCR is concerned that the adoption of Clause 51 will result in a skewed and imbalanced application of the exclusion clauses in the UK. In its stead, UNHCR would recommend that the UK government consider the incorporation of Article 1 F in its entirety into domestic legislation. Such a measure would ensure that the exclusion clauses are considered in context and on a strong legal footing."
	The briefing then says that
	"terrorist-type acts (as defined in relevant international conventions) may qualify as excludable acts under Article 1 F if they reach an appropriate level of gravity to warrant denial of protection. This does not mean, however, that any act labelled as 'terrorist' per se should automatically trigger exclusion under article 1 F. The fact that there are serious reasons for considering that an individual has committed acts described as 'terrorist' in nature should trigger consideration of the exclusion clauses but may not in itself generally constitute sufficient evidence to justify exclusion. Each case will require individual consideration, taking into account the unique circumstances of each individual, their acts, motivation and risk on return. In this regard, UNHCR wishes to express serious concern over the current proposal in clause 51 to automatically link acts defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 with an excludable offence under Article 1 F(c) of the Refugee Convention."
	I am grateful to the House for its indulgence in allowing me to read that out, which is not my normal practice. It is important, however, to get the point across. If the Minister is not minded to listen to us, to which I have become accustomed over recent months, or even to the ILPA, surely such clear and unambiguous condemnation from the UNHCR should give the Government pause for thought.
	Clauses 52 and 53, which concern the deprivation of citizenship and right of abode, would, as drafted, introduce a ground that continued enjoyment of citizenship or right of abode was not conducive to the public good. That, of course, is the test applied in relation to deportation or exclusion—

Evan Harris: Of foreign nationals.

Alistair Carmichael: Of foreign nationals, as my hon. Friend reminds me from a sedentary position.
	In our view, that test is far too low for such a serious step. It is a quantum leap to deprive someone of their citizenship or right of abode when that person, although they have a second nationality, might never have had recourse to using it, might have no links to the country concerned and might never have lived in it. To put someone in a position of relying on a citizenship other than their British citizenship on such a low test is unacceptable. The effect of our amendment No. 37 is to retain as the test for depriving an individual of citizenship that they should be shown to have done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory.
	The Conservative amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are interesting, particularly No. 2, which seeks to delete the provision relating to Ministers' thinking. I venture to say that if the Government are going to be required to satisfy courts that Ministers had thought about something before they did it, they might be in for a lean time as far as successful cases in court are concerned. I can think of no other instance in which "thinks" is used in such a situation. I would be interested if the Minister could point me towards a precedent. In the event of his failure to do so, it would be sensible for the Government to accept amendment No. 2.

Neil Gerrard: I will be brief, given the time that is left. It is a pity that we have such a short time to debate what, I think, is one of the most important sections of the Bill, including a group of clauses that were added in Committee, have never been debated on the Floor of the House and are some of the most important changes that have been made. It is probably true that clauses 51 to 53 will affect relatively small numbers of people. For those small numbers of people, however, they will be extremely important.
	I have two or three points. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked whether clause 51 is necessary, in that the existing law provides for the exclusion of someone who is a violent terrorist from claiming asylum. I will not repeat what he said about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In the years in which I have been in the House, however, the UNHCR has commented on a number of provisions in asylum and immigration Bills, and the comments about clause 51 are probably the strongest that I have seen from it about any such clause and its incompatibility with the 1951 convention. It made it very clear that interpretation of the convention is not what we should be doing. The provisions in the convention cannot be unilaterally modified by a state that is a contracting party to the convention. It wants states that have not already done so to incorporate not just article 1(F)(c) of the convention but (a) and (b).
	Last week we debated the Terrorism Bill, which has not yet completed its passage. The definitions in clause 51 are relevant to that Bill. The definition of "encouraging terrorism" is an example. It is quite possible that before we finish considering the Terrorism Act, there will be changes. I am also not sure how Government amendments relating to extra-territorial acts of terrorism that were agreed last week should be read in the context of this Bill, or how any changes will be dealt with. One of the commitments made by the Government during last week's debate was that the Home Secretary would ask Lord Carlile to review the definition of terrorism, not just in the Terrorism Bill but in the Terrorism Act 2000. The definition in the 2000 Act is mentioned in clause 51 of this Bill. I want to be certain that the outcome of any review, including Lord Carlile's review, will be translated into this Bill, because it strikes me as inconsistent to include a definition of terrorism in one Bill that does not relate clearly to the definition in another.
	I wish we had had more time to debate such a critical part of the Bill, but I shall end my speech now, because the Minister will want to speak during the few minutes that are left.

Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister wants to speak.
	Let me repeat what I said in Committee. When the Minister introduced the new clause relating to deprivation of citizenship, he spoke with great courtesy and authority. I repeat that my party stands united behind the Government's attempts to combat the surge of terrorism. Indeed, the whole House is united on that. I should have like to question the Minister on a number of matters, but time is against us and I believe that they will be raised in another place. Deprivation of citizenship will, I think, be used rarely—it has been used rarely so far—and I know that the Government will retain a right of appeal. I also know that the Government will do their best to strike a balance between civil liberties and the defence of the realm. We are with them 100 per cent. on that, and I believe that any further matters that I might raise with the Minister will be raised in another place.

Tony McNulty: I am glad that we have at least some time left.
	Let me rebut the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He knows the context in which these clauses were introduced as well as I do. Although not all Members, including members of the Committee, were not party to the gestation period when the clauses were discussed, they were discussed on an all-party basis throughout and beyond the summer. The other place will be aware of that. I do not accept the terms in which my hon. Friend described the genesis of the clauses or, indeed, the final discussions.
	I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on amendment No. 34, for reasons of time rather than for any other reason. The UNHCR considerations are serious, although in part they challenge and condemn many past UN discussions and resolutions.
	I received a very nice letter from Bemma Donkoh, the UNHCR's representative in London, which laid all these things out and said, "Best wishes, see you again soon, lots of love Bemma". We have a strong and not always unduly non-critical relationship. It is a good one.
	It is right and proper that, with all the cross-party deliberations about terrorism, these clauses sit in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, rather than in some omnibus terrorism Bill. I thank everyone on the Committee for setting a full day aside to deliberate these clauses and for the discussion that was held, which was interesting, informed and moved things on in some regard. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), as he has reminded me twice now, made a very good speech, although he seemed surprised that he had done so—there was shock in his voice when he said "I made a very good speech that day".
	The UNHCR points are serious and need to be considered with the seriousness that they deserve. The charge is that clause 51 is not compatible with the refugee convention, but part of the justification for clause 51 in all its glory is that it reflects the relevant Security Council resolutions that refer to the guiding principles of the UN. UN Security Council resolution 1373 states that
	"knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts"
	as well as the commission of such acts constitute acts
	"contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
	UN Security Council resolution 1377 is broadly in the same terms. I said in Committee that, as and when—fortunately, the progress of Bills through Parliament favours this—there needs to be read-across between the Terrorism Bill and any changes made to the constituent parts of that, and this Bill, we will seek to reflect those changes in this Bill. That makes perfect sense. I cannot pre-empt what the other place will do with the Terrorism Bill, but we stand ready to cross-reference the two Bills in the appropriate place.
	I think that, given the state of this Bill and the state of the Terrorism Bill, little needs to happen, not least because Lord Carlile will conduct a substantive review of the definition of terrorism over the year. Much of the debate about read-across refers to the definitions that are included in the Terrorism Bill.
	We believe that the UNHCR's points about the definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act are unfair. The definition is compatible with article 1(F)(c) of the refugee convention, as is the 2005 Terrorism Bill. We do not consider it to be at odds with UN Security Council resolutions that were drawn up reflecting the principles of the UN.
	We are exhorted by UNHCR to take a holistic approach to exclusion clauses. We argue that we have done so, and they are reflected in this Bill. Clause 51 is not piecemeal. Our approach to the application of article 1(F) is holistic and we contest the points made by UNHCR in that regard.
	We take the same attitude to the points made about positions of power. The UNHCR London paper suggests that in principle only persons who have been in power or a state-like entity would be capable of committing such acts, given that articles 1 and 2 of the UN charter set out the fundamental principles that states must uphold in mutual relations. A slew of Asylum and Immigration Tribunal case law and Security Council resolutions themselves contend that very position. Although I take UNHCR's points very seriously and take into account the points made by my hon. Friends and other colleagues that these are serious clauses in the Bill, I do not accept UNHCR's point that, of themselves and in their own terms, they are incompatible with the overall thrust of what is in the UN charter. They are very serious clauses that are a consequence of what we are trying to achieve in the broader sense in counter-terrorism and I—

It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [5 July].
	The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 275.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 52
	 — 
	Deprivation of Citizenship

Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 28, line 32, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Carmichael.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 278.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Immigration and Asylum Appeals: Consequential Amendments

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 32, line 34, at end insert—
	'13A  In section 104(5) (pending appeal) for "(d), (e) or (f)" substitute "(f), (fa) or (fb)".'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As is customary on Third Reading, I thank all the members of the Standing Committee for what seemed to me, in my limited experience of the House, to be an informed, discursive and useful debate. We had plenty of time and all the necessary matters were considered in a spirit of reasonable discourse and, on the odd day, with some intellectual rigour. Our sittings were extremely useful and productive, as is right and proper given that the Bill deals with a range of extremely serious matters in the context of an important political debate. That description applied even before the Government introduced—with agreement—the counter-terrorism clauses after the Bill had been published. That was a most unusual way of proceeding, but the House in the main will understand why things happened that way. There was a significant degree of cross-party agreement on the process, if not on the substance of those clauses.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: No, I will not.
	The Bill should be seen in the context of a substantive political debate. Last February, we proposed a series of plans and policies on asylum and immigration. We published a five-year plan, on which the Prime Minister elaborated in the course of the general election. The Bill addresses much of that, but as I said in Committee it constitutes a series of building blocks. I mean no discourtesy in respect of previous pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government when I say that the Bill is not, and was not offered up as, an all-singing, all-dancing omnibus Bill that answers every conceivable question on the range of immigration, asylum and nationality issues. I made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that much of what is in the Bill should be seen as building blocks. Although that does not fit in terribly well with our processes and how we do what we do, I said that the Bill needed to be read in the context of the five-year plan and all that we seek to do in that plan in terms not simply of immigration, but of asylum and how we are trying to secure our borders through the e-borders programme and the border management programme. We are putting out for public discussion every aspect of where we are with asylum and immigration.
	It would be remiss of me, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, if the Bill, as it is now to be dispatched to the other place, were not put in the context of the political debate. I make no apologies for mentioning again that collectively the British polity, British public policy and the British media did not serve themselves or others well by the way in which these matters were covered during the general election. Throughout the election, these matters were discussed in terms and in a form that was proxy for a debate that we may or may not need on community cohesion, on race and on other such issues. They were wrapped up in rather bogus fashion as constituting a serious debate. I fully concur, not least as the Minister responsible for immigration, that such a debate is needed.
	We need a debate on asylum and immigration matters, but the way that such matters were discussed during the general election is a matter of shame, not least for the Conservative party. I am extremely pleased that none of the dripping poison that polluted our democratic process was evident in Committee. I heartily congratulate every Conservative Member in Committee for not going down the route that their central party took during the general election. I freely attest that that route was not taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins); nor was it taken by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). However, in the context of the general election they should collectively hang their heads in shame and send the running dog from Australia back to where he came from.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will now address his remarks to the Bill on Third Reading.

Tony McNulty: Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you allowed me a little licence to consider the political context in which the Bill has been discussed.
	There is no doubt, in the broadest of terms of British public policy over 30 years, that we have collectively run away from a substantive debate on asylum and immigration. I have no difficulty in engaging in such a debate. I am pleased that the Bill is before the House at a time soon enough after the election to put these matters in context. That is of great service to British public policy generally and to the House.
	The Bill is about only those matters that need legislation in the context of the five-year plan, based on what was published in February. The provisions in the Bill now put it in a better place than it was when we started consideration in Committee. There is no doubt about that. Many of the amendments that we discussed today on Report go back to our discussions in Committee and take on board many of the points that were made by Committee members. Sometimes they have not met the full satisfaction of hon. Members, but I think that people will concur, when they read the Hansard report of our considerations, that many Government amendments were an attempt to meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. There were some genuine concerns, many of which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I attested in Committee, will be readily dealt with in secondary legislation and in other forms that will be wrapped round the Bill rather than being part of it.
	We think that the Bill improves our ability to improve border security by allowing border agencies to share passenger data more efficiently. It allows the use of 21st century technology to facilitate legitimate travel and to improve the identification of illegal immigration. That is not simply in terms of the Bill but in the context of everything else that we are doing in respect of important elements of policy.
	I freely admit that the most contentious part of the Bill was the introduction of a rationalised appeal system for managed migration routes in line with improved decision making on visa applications. That is very important in the context of the points system. I may not owe the House an apology, but I accept that it is difficult for Members who did not serve on the Committee to understand the narrow focus of the legislation without the wider picture of the consultation paper on the points system and other aspects of the five-year plan. I repeat the promise that I gave in Committee: as there is no substantive change to the points system during the transitional phase, we shall preserve the appeals regime during that period. If discrete parts of the points system can be introduced early, the quid pro quo is that appeals will fall away. That will give us sufficient time to bed in the new resources, the decision-making process and other improvements in entry clearance officer structures. Hopefully, if the full-time independent monitor is appointed by January, they will be in post when our new decision-making process is introduced, which is all to the good.
	Genuine concerns have been expressed, some of which I did not accept, about unifying the appeal process to a single level of appeal. However, I tried to address anxieties about the transition to a points system without appeals. The Bill provides for civil penalties for employers of illegal workers, and creates a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. The five-year plan and all the provisions in the Bill contain the vital elements of a progressive asylum and immigration process. If we are to do everything that we can to maintain our position on the 1951 refugee convention and ensure that this country remains a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, we must simultaneously adopt a robust approach to the removal of people who do not have refugee status under the convention.
	Some people do not like that approach, but I am convinced that if we are to preserve the integrity of the convention—hopefully, no party will fight the next election saying that they will get rid of the 1951 convention, as that would be shameful—we need equally robust decision-making and removals processes.

Alistair Carmichael: I accept what the Minister says about a robust removals programme. Does he accept, however, that the practice of dawn raids on families with children goes beyond robustness and strays into the realms of barbarity?

Tony McNulty: No, I do not. I can tell the hon. Gentleman quite cheerfully that much of the debate, not least in the Scottish context, has been racked with inaccuracies, misinformation and outright mischief.

Alistair Carmichael: What about raids at 5 am?

Tony McNulty: I could cite at length coverage in the Scottish media that talks about tear gas and riot police, as well as armies of police dragging children from their beds and kicking down doors at 4 am. None of those things are a substantial part of what the immigration service does in Scotland or elsewhere. The debate is ever so slightly skewed in the Scottish context. I freely accept that it is my job to make sure that we never reach a stage where people who make applications, whether or not they are successful in obtaining refugee status, languish in the system for four or five years, as that has an impact on integration, the putting down of roots and so on.

Alistair Carmichael: On the Scottish context, will the Minister say why the Government tabled new clause 3 on access to the housing list in Scotland, which is clearly a devolved matter, and why they then withdrew that provision?

Tony McNulty: I shall cheerfully do so. The new clause was tabled on Report. I think—people far more expert than I will tell me if I am wrong—that was at the behest of the Scottish Executive, not least because there was an assumption that there is a grey area between what is a UK matter and what is devolved in regard to what we are doing in the Bill. Between the tabling of the new clause and our considerations today, there was a court case that rendered the form and the language of the new clause inappropriate.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being exceptionally generous at this late stage in the debate. Is he saying that the Scottish Executive asked for new clause 3 to be tabled or to be withdrawn? I did not understand.

Tony McNulty: I apologise for my lack of clarity. Working with the Scottish Executive, it was determined that the clause needed to be tabled. The Court of Appeal in the case of Morris—we got the final judgment this week—made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996, holding that that provision was within the ambit of article 8 of the European convention on human rights and breached article 14, as it discriminated on grounds of nationality, immigration control, settled residence and social welfare.
	New clause 3(1)(d) is in the same terms as section 185(4) and, although it does not apply to persons subject to immigration control, but only to other persons from abroad—essentially European Economic Area nationals—which was the point of the new clause, it has the same potential for discriminatory effect. A petition has been filed in the House of Lords seeking leave to appeal. That is the present position. As the new clause was incompatible with section 185(4), it was withdrawn. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know in more detail about its gestation, but it originated from discussion between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he is a better man than me, but that is why the new clause was withdrawn in the end.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Minister's comments on the need to get tough on deporting those whose applications have failed and who are in the country illegally. The other day, I asked his Department a written question: how many people in this country are awaiting deportation owing to failed asylum and immigration applications? The Department's answer was that that information was not available. Is that not the problem? The Government have not got a grip on illegal immigration.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that in replying to the hon. Gentleman, the Minister will not stray too far from Third Reading of the Bill.

Tony McNulty: I shall follow your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that a confrere of the hon. Gentleman made a stupid and ignorant statement in the general election—"Which part of 'Send them back' don't you understand, Mr. Blair?" In the context of the Bill and more generally, that shows a profound lack of understanding of the individual. Let me make it clear: it was not the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker); it was the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).
	We need to understand each individual's case, assess their level of documentation and establish that there is agreement with the country that they are going to about whether they can go or not, and that they are who they say they are.
	If the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) makes that comment in the context of the five-year plan, regardless of what is in the Bill, with a modicum of satisfaction about the level of removals between 1979 and 1997, I wager him that the figures were not very good then, compared with now. In the context of the Bill and generally, one must understand that these are difficult matters. We have gone from a position where, at best, those who had unfounded claims in the end were being removed at a rate of 200 a month at a time when applications for asylum were pushing 10,000 a month, to a position now where, roughly speaking—we are always about three months behind in these matters—1,400 or 1,500 are being removed at a time when new applications are about 2,000 a month. That is huge progress. Prior to that, the position was even worse.
	Elements of the Bill will assist us in reaching a stage where there is a robust asylum system that defends the rights of those who secure refugee status, and put us right back where we have always been collectively and across parties. The UK has a proud history, in the main, as regards refugee status.
	The second key element—

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: I have said no.
	If the public are to have confidence in immigration policy, we must have a controlled, managed migration system, which we announced in February with the introduction of the points system. The quid pro quo for public confidence in a transparent, simplified, managed migration system is—this goes to the heart of the Bill—a proper regime, which includes employers taking responsibility for dealing with illegal working. The two elements that I have mentioned are reflected in the Bill, outlined in the five-year plan and the strategy document, and go to the heart of a progressive system.
	As I have said, provisions were added to the Bill after the cross-party deliberations in July. They concern denying asylum to terrorists, extending the power to strip citizenship from those who act in ways contrary to the UK's interest and speeding up the appeals process in national security deportation cases. I agree with those who suggest that it would nice if the other place were to have a detailed discussion on that point, reflecting our discussion in Committee rather than today's truncated debate. Those elements, too, form a measured and proportionate response to the real threat that we face. Some hon. Members—happily a minority—think that the threat is not significant. The measures are aimed at people who threaten the UK's national security and engage in unacceptable behaviour that creates a climate in which extremism can take root.
	As I said in Committee, I do not believe that the measures will impact on large numbers of people in practice. As ever, some hon. Members—they were not members of the Committee—seek to take a universal position, assume that every attempt to counter terrorism affects everybody rather than just a small minority, and pollute and distort the argument.
	We shall utilise technology where we can in the context of this Bill and beyond, and we are introducing biometrics now rather than later for foreign visa nationals. This country has a chance to introduce a progressive asylum and immigration system rooted in a context in which refugees are welcome. If we need a debate about community cohesion—our communities are now third, fourth or fifth generation—we can have it, because the Bill and the strategy that surrounds it will hopefully lance the Powellite poison and Mickey Mouse Alf Garnett impressions that have characterised discussions about asylum and immigration thus far. That way lies madness, so I am pleased that this Bill gets us to a place where we have a progressive asylum and immigration policy.
	I thank the official Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive contributions. I will not thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who chickened out and worked on another Bill rather than joining us. Liberal Democrat Front Benchers made some productive contributions, but not a whole lot—I might add that those contributions were always at length, too. I thank the Whip, who did an expert job, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I also thank the army, nay legion, of lawyers, policy officials and Home Office people who have helped us make what on the face of it looks like a small contribution to asylum and immigration policy in this country. In the wider context of the five-year plan and the strategy, however, the Bill has a significance way beyond its actual provisions.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about official Opposition Front Benchers and agree that we have had a measured and constructive discussion. Because I am at the Dispatch Box this evening on Third Reading, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who has done sterling work on this Bill. The Government's timetabling placed him in some difficulty because he was working on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 at the same time.
	We have had a reasonable examination of the Bill. As the Minister knows, there is much that Conservative Members agree with. I was happy with the way in which the Government introduced the late clauses because of the need to tidy up some of the provisions relating to terrorism. I thank the Minister for making his officials available to brief me and my Front-Bench colleagues, because that enabled us to approach the amendments in a slightly different fashion from what would have been the case had we been unsighted.
	The Bill moves this whole area forward. It includes some good measures on fingerprinting, passenger and   crew information, information sharing, searches, and the deprivation of citizenship and right of abode, which the Government have understandably felt it necessary to propose in response to the current situation.
	However, the Minister always has to spoil things a little by having a political dig at the Conservatives. He should be more magnanimous in victory; after all, his party won the election. I will not take any lessons from him or hang my head in shame, because whatever an individual may have said in the heat of an election, it does not represent my party's views. He does a disservice to the whole business of politics by raising that here.
	More refinements may be made to the Bill in another place, perhaps in the light of current events or the way in which we have conducted ourselves here. I see that the Minister is nodding. I hope that the pattern of Conservative Members' voting indicates to another place those areas where we have concerns. If truth be told, the Minister would also have some concerns were he not tied by his office.
	The current drafting of the provisions on appeals is a muddle, and that will cost us in terms of our reputation at home and abroad. There is probably good reason to retain in-country rights of appeal in some cases, where people will be in the country having entered legally with leave. The disruption if they are forced to leave the UK will be sufficiently enormous not only to create administrative chaos, but potentially to give rise to successful human rights applications in the courts and compensation claims. The effects on our universities and higher education institutions have been laid out pretty well in Committee and on Report.
	The Minister needs to deal with the situation whereby refugees may be left in limbo. The Refugee Council has said:
	"It is a shame that the plan to leave refugees living in limbo for five years before giving them the right to settle in Britain has been included. This measure contradicts other helpful steps—such as the extension of integration loans—which assist refugees in building new lives in this country."
	That reflects its view of some of the Bill's other provisions. The Government say that they wish to have a one-stop appeals system, but I should have thought that there were alternative ways of achieving that. I hope that the other place will examine that carefully, because improvements could be made.
	The quality of the decision making on entry clearance appeals has been identified as being poor, even in the report by the Constitutional Affairs Committee from which I quoted earlier. We are pleased that there is scope for review and monitoring. However, as additional efforts to improve quality control do not substitute for what is already in place, particularly for appeals, we hope that that will be examined in another place.
	As regards employment, there are real risks that employers, not least because of the heavy burden of checking placed upon them, will be reluctant to employ people who are, or whom they think might be, subject to immigration control. That could result in an increase of discrimination in employment. The proposed code of practice certainly holds no magic answer to this problem.
	The ongoing obligation on employers to check the immigration status of employees will cause difficulties in practice. For example, at the time when a person's leave is due to run out, their documents are usually with the Home Office. There has been criticism from the Immigration Advisory Service and even from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, whose chief executive has said that part of the Bill is asking employers to do the Home Office's dirty work, and that people migrate here because there is work for them to do. There are warnings there, as well as in the views of the CBI and the National Farmers Union about the employment of agricultural workers.
	I was pleased that the Minister accepted some of our suggestions, particularly the amendment relating to the period of 28 days. We thank him for looking with favour on that. On the powers of search and arrest, it is extremely risky to give private contractors the right to detain. The Government say that the contractors will only be searching lorries, but what would happen if they found someone? I am still worried about the scrutiny, accountability and oversight of private contractors, on whom I am actually very keen. Concerns have also been expressed in that regard about the potential for ill-treatment during detention and escort, and those concerns must be dealt with at some stage. There is certainly no case for giving powers to detain, arrest or search to anyone other than professionals. The Minister must ensure that the people who are employed in this area are trained, skilled and accountable. Perhaps that issue will be considered in another place.
	I would like to acknowledge the people who have briefed us on these issues. There have not been as many lawyers, officials and rafts of people coming to our door to brief us as the Government have had, but we have been very impressed by the calibre of the organisations that have sought to have their views aired. I hope that they will consider that we have done justice to their views, even though in some cases we do not entirely agree with them.
	I also want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Committee. As I said at the end of the Committee stage, the Bill will make our borders safer and make our country a better place for people to come and live in and to visit. We hope that the legislation, in whatever form it finally appears, will help the people who defend our country to do a better job and to make it a place that provides us with a safe and sure environment.
	The Bill will go to the other place, where I hope it will be refined in some of the ways that I have outlined today. However, in the light of the way in which we have conducted the proceedings on the scrutiny of the Bill, I would like to tell the Minister that, should a vote be called on Third Reading tonight, I shall ask my hon. Friends who are present in the House to join the Government in the Lobby, to ensure that both parties stand four-square against terrorism. The message must go out clearly from the House that, regardless of rhetoric and political differences, when it comes to the safety and security of our citizens the Conservative party will stand behind the Government in this instance.

Neil Gerrard: I see that we have about a minute left, so it will be difficult to make much of a contribution. I want to make the point that, for some of us, there are still areas of serious concern in the Bill, especially on appeal rights. I know that a lot of what has to be done on appeal rights will depend on secondary legislation, and I say to the Minister that I hope that he talks to Members of the House before that legislation is introduced so that we are clear about where we can and cannot maintain some appeal rights.
	I am grateful for what the Minister said about unaccompanied minors, and I hope that we can make more progress on that. Will he make absolutely sure that there is a clear relationship between what the House finally agrees on the Terrorism Bill—

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 58.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Ordered,
	That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20th December 2005, do adjourn till Monday 9th January 2006.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, on Tuesday 20th December—
	(1) references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday; and
	(2) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
	Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the Order of 24th May 2005 relating to Business of the House be amended by leaving out the reference to 24th February and inserting a reference to 3rd March; and
	(2) the Orders of the day which have been set down for 24th February shall be read and discharged; and the said Orders shall be set down for 3rd March.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

PETITION
	 — 
	IsItFair Campaign

Lembit �pik: I would like to submit a petition from constituents who live in the beautiful town of Machynlleth and it relates to council tax. The petition reads as follows:
	The Petition of the Isitfair Council Tax Protest campaign
	Declares that the year-on-year, inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay; further that the current property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Public Order (Bars and Clubs)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell]
	7.16 pm

Mark Lancaster: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address the House on what I consider to be a major problem within Britain's drinking culture, a view that I think is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	In Milton Keynes, we are only too aware of the dangers of glass bottles and glasses. In the early hours of last Christmas morning, one of my constituents, Blake Golding, was the victim of a brutal bottle attack while working as a doorman. At just 22 years of age, he was scarred for life while going to the aid of a colleague. That terrible incident could have been prevented if the attacker had not had access to a glass bottle. The terrifying fact is that bars and clubs have extremely dangerous weapons at arm's reach. A glass or bottle can be used by anyone to cause a great deal of harm to another individual.
	On 14 June 2005, a campaign was set up by Blake's family and as a result 12,000 people, including hundreds of police officers, have signed a petition calling for a Government ban on glass drinking vessels in all late-night clubs and bars. The success of the campaign is testament to the determination of the Golding family and the support shown by our local newspaper, the Milton Keynes Citizen and Three Counties Radio. I hope to be able to increase awareness of the issue today, and to gain further support for such a change.
	Unfortunately, this problem has remained largely unaddressed by successive Governments, yet we are talking about a readily available weapon that can cause much harm, as Blake's case has shown. In fact, glasses and bottles are the most common weapons used in violent assaults in the United Kingdom, which is no wonder when we consider how many drinks are served in glass containers. In the UK, over 5.6 billion pints of beer are served in bars, pubs and clubs a year, nearly 6.8 million bottles of beer, 4.2 million bottles of alcopops and 313,000 bottles of wine.
	The risk associated with drinking glasses and bottles is being highlighted, but it takes cases such as Blake's to increase support for the proposed ban. Bar Mee in Milton Keynes became the first pub in the area to serve drinks solely in sturdy plastic glasses and bottles in a bid to reduce the horrifying number of bottle attacks. Milton Keynes council is proposing a motion to amend its licensing policy regarding this issue. It is also worth acknowledging the policy of Yates's bars nationwide, which already use shatter-proof plastic glass. We need to make that the case in all bars and clubs across the country.
	The night-time entertainment districts of many towns and cities are expanding. Although that has economic benefits, it can be accompanied by an increase in crime and disorder because of the high concentration of pubs and clubs. Research shows that there is a link between alcohol consumption and violent behavior. A study by the Prime Minister's strategy unit suggests that 1.2 million incidents of alcohol-induced violence are reported every year.
	According to the 200102 British crime survey, in 47 per cent. of all violent incidents, the victim described the assailant as being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the assault. Furthermore, 38 per cent. of stranger violence and 23 per cent. of acquaintance violence occurred in or around a pub or a club.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing a debate on such an important issue. He will know that in the adjacent constituency of Wellingborough, this is a huge issue, too. Does he agree that parents have two main concerns when their nearly adult children go off perhaps to Northampton on a Friday night to attend a club? They are worried first, about their children being in a car accident, and secondly, that they might be assaulted by some drunken yob in a club and come back home with dreadful injuries.

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Our constituencies neighbour each other and his constituents go not only to Northampton, but to Milton Keynes. I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable point.
	More than half of all incidents of alcohol-related violence result in some form of injury. In a fifth of incidents, the perpetrator had a weapon that he threatened to useusually a glass or a bottle. Figures obtained for Manchester show that one person is seriously wounded by a bottle every fortnight. Toughened glass is now being introduced in bars and clubs and serious assaults have fallen by up to 50 per cent.

Julie Morgan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and I have great sympathy with what he is saying. May I draw his attention to the good work done by AMECthe Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaignin Cardiff, and particularly to the work of my constituent, Professor John Shepherd, who works in the dental school at the Heath hospital and has campaigned for many years for the prevention of glass injury in pubs and clubs? He has succeeded in reducing the number of serious accident and emergency cases. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that recent proposals in Cardiff to compel some pubs and clubs to use plastic glasses after 11 pm and to introduce bottle banks in the citygetting the glass off the streetsrepresent a step forward that will further reduce the number of injuries in Cardiff?

Mark Lancaster: I agree with the hon. Lady, who makes a very good point. The work of Professor Shepherd is well known to me, as I believe that he has proposed a British standard for toughened glass. I would certainly welcome that measure.
	In Glasgow city centre in 2003, there were 313 serious assaults, 81 of which involved glass bottles. Of those, 69 involved people being struck on the head with a bottle. Those are hugely worrying statistics and if we take account of the number of drinks served every year, we have to accept that if someone wants to act in a violent manner, one of the many bottles or glasses that are close to hand will be an easy choice of weapon. If those bottles and glasses were replaced with plastic, they would not be able to cause the damage that they do. Plastic bottles and glasses would allow for a safer drinking and social environment and a change to plastic could also lessen insurance premiums for pubs and clubs, as well as provide a safer working environment for bar staff to operate inthough those are just small benefits in comparison with the opportunity to save lives and prevent serious injuries.

Philip Hollobone: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this evening's Adjournment debate. I represent the Kettering constituency and Kettering is the nightclub capital of Northamptonshire. I believe that many of my constituents will welcome both the debate that he has started this evening and his proposals for change. Kettering general hospital has a major accident and emergency department and I believe that many health service staff will also welcome the proposals that he is advancing this evening.

Mark Lancaster: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, though I would, of course, dispute the fact that Kettering is the nightclub capital of the midlands, as I like to think that Milton Keynes isperhaps we should debate that at another time.
	It is important to note that plastic bottles and glasses are recyclable. Britain's plastic bottles create 500,000 tonnes of waste every year, but many local councils now have recycling schemes that allow plastic to be reprocessed into various new products, including clothing and textiles.
	The company Coors Brewers has also produced new containers made of reusable toughened plastic. They cost roughly the same as the traditional glass and are also unbreakable, which means that they cannot be smashed and used as dangerous weapons.
	Glasgow city council is working towards becoming the UK's first glass-free city. In October, it introduced a compulsory ban on the sale of alcohol in glass bottles or containers in clubs. The conditions of that ban must be met by January 2006, and all other venues in Glasgow will be expected to follow suit within a year. Producers of top brands, including Stella, Budweiser, Foster's, Carling, Miller, Guinness and Tennants, support the principle behind that move, and I see no reason why the rest of the UK should not follow suit.
	Unfortunately, despite positive steps by individual councils, bar chains and brewers, the Licensing Act 2003 merely calls for drinking establishments to look into adopting the use of toughened glass, but that substance cannot be used to produce bottles in the way that multilayered plastic can. In fact, the Government may be about to add to the problems with the implementation of the 2003 Act, which I and many others fear will lead to an explosion of binge drinking and antisocial behaviour.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers claims that there is
	a strong link between the increase in disorder and the explosion of late-night premises.
	A Home Office Research paper found that 39 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds are classified as binge drinkers. In 2003, moreover, 60 per cent. of binge drinkers admitted involvement in disorderly behaviour, compared to 25 per cent. of regular drinkers. Alcohol-related admissions cost the NHS 1.7 billion a year. The NHS and the police already face stretched budgets, and the police believe the cost to them of alcohol-related crime will exceed 1 billion.

Jeremy Browne: This subject is of particular constituency interest to me, as a young woman called Louise McClintock lost an eye in a glass incident in Taunton. She was also severely scarred by the attack. May I commend the Somerset police force's initiative called Drink Safe, Be Safe? The police have worked with bars and other organisations, particularly in Taunton, to improve the safety of drinking environments, and have encouraged the use of plastic bottles and glasses. I hope that both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will find an opportunity to come to Taunton and see the excellent progress that is being made.

Mark Lancaster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I used to enjoy my cider when I was at Exeter university, so I should be delighted to take up that offer.
	Hospital staff have also raised concerns that the new licensing laws will lead to an increase in binge drinking and a rise in the number of assaults. Currently, 40 per cent. of accident and emergency admissions are alcohol related, and the proportion rises to 70 per cent. between midnight and 5 am.
	An investigation into 24-hour drinking was carried out at Ninewells accident and emergency department in Dundee, where more flexible drinking hours already operate. Staff at Ninewells claimed that drink-related violence had got worse, with many more high-violence assaults resulting from people being involved in large fights. Many of the injuries sustained were caused by bottles and glass being used as weapons. That makes it even more crucial that we make it compulsory for clubs and bars to use only plastic glasses and bottles. We must do all we can to lessen the dangers to members of the public.

Charles Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate. Does he agree that much attention is rightly focused on the danger posed by knives, but that glass can be just as lethal and damaging to those against whom it is used?

Mark Lancaster: I agree, but there have been suggestions that, even if my proposals were adopted, violent people would still find weapons such as knives, and that attacks would still occur. It has been said that my proposals may not be the answer to the problem, and I agree that promoting the use of plastic bottles and glasses does not tackle the wider issue of why people act violently, or of why binge drinking is such a problem in the UK. However, I do not accept that we should therefore forget about a compulsory change to plastic glasses and bottles. The fact remains that using only plastic will remove potential weapons that can inflict a great deal of harm. We would be taking glass out of the equation. How can that be a bad thing?
	There may be a short-term cost implication for manufacturers in a switch to plastic and I appreciate their concerns about that. It may require price increases, but surely those will be outweighed if serious injuries are prevented. It is a small price to pay for preventing the physical and mental damage that a glass attack can cause.
	There have been proposals for new measures in venue management; for example, ensuring a quicker collection of empties or altering the atmosphere in clubs and pubs. Introducing such measures is not enough, as it would not completely remove the risk. There would still be an opportunity for glass attacks to occur, and I do not want to see another person suffer injuries like those of Blake Golding.
	My proposed change could save people's lives and will reduce the injuries that are sustained annually through bottle attacks. It is important to remember that any innocent person could be the victim of a glass attack, so I believe that removing that threat will be widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. Much more needs to be done to decrease antisocial behaviour in the UK.

Russell Brown: I concur with what the hon. Gentleman is saying and with his suggestions. The violence in those attacks is undoubtedly fuelled beforehand by alcohol, so does not the hon. Gentleman believe that licensees have a role to play and that responsible licensees will ensure that their customers do not get to the stage where they commit attacks?

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not suggest for a second that plastic is the only solution to the problem. It would form part of a number of measures and as he points out, the role of licensees would contribute to helping to reduce the violence.
	I welcome anything that helps make pubs and clubs safer places to drink. It is important that we take these proposals forward now, rather than waiting till another person is scarred or, worse, killed as a result of an attack with glass.

Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) on securing this important debate, and I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss the issues he raised. I thank him for liaising with Home Office officials on the issue, which has been raised by several Members, as was reflected in their interventions describing their constituency experiences.
	All Members present will want to join me in offering regrets and sympathies to Blake Golding and, in a way, our thanks for the fact that some good has come out of a terrible event, in the sense that we have been encouraged to campaign on this important matter and to address the consequence of glass being used as a weapon in cases such as those described by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). I particularly pay tribute to the way in which Blake Golding's parents, Robert and Marjorie, conducted their campaign following the incident. I saw Marjorie on television this morning and she said that her son's life had been turned upside down. There is a duty on Government to act effectively to ensure that nobody else's life is turned upside down. How do we do that?
	Let us look at what is happening already. In Milton Keynes, partly as a result of the Goldings' campaign, the community safety partnership has a violence thematic subgroup, which is currently considering the introduction of plastic vessels in pubs and nightclubs. I am especially pleased to learn that the partnership will be participating in the alcohol misuse enforcement campaign that has just been announced, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred.
	The local police in Milton Keynes must also be commended for their overall approach to tackling the problem of alcohol-related violent crime and disorder. I understand that their proactive and targeted approach led to a reduction in public place violence offences of 39 per cent. between April and September 2005, compared with the same period in 2003, which is an impressive statistic. I believe that the proactive use of CCTV and fixed penalty notices has helped to contribute to that reduction. If alcohol misuse is going to be tackled effectively, full use needs to be made by all partners of the wide range of powers available.
	Of course the police have an important role to play in preventing alcohol-fuelled disorder, but the drinks industry has an equally important role. As the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes pointed out, Bar Mee in Milton Keynes has undertaken to serve customers using only plastic vessels in future.
	Milton Keynes local authority is currently discussing the issue and has an item for consideration by its licensing committee on 24 November in which it is proposed that licences should include a requirement
	to ensure that . . . all drinking vessels in which drinks are served throughout the entire trading period shall be made of either toughened glass, or a plastic material that does not break into sharp pieces . . . no drink shall be served in a glass bottle.
	How can Milton Keynes do that? It is doing that on a notable daythe day on which the Licensing Act 2003, which the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to try to defeat yesterday, comes into force. That can be done because of the powers in that Act. He is wrong to claim that the 2003 Act empowers local authorities to turn only to toughened glass. It empowers local authorities, such as Milton Keynes, which covers his constituency, not merely to require that toughened glass is used, but to put in place a requirement as part of its licensing regime that plastic vessels be used.
	One of the reasons the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the introduction of the 2003 Act is that it provides the capacity to target and to develop locally appropriate licensing regimes.

Charles Walker: Does the Minister believe that the Licensing Act 2003, which is due to come into force on 24 November, will reduce the overall incidence of alcohol-related violent crime in the year after its introduction? If it does not, will a Minister or two consider resigning?

Fiona Mactaggart: I am going to continue to show how we have built on to the framework of the Licensing Act, to intervene effectively if violence increases as a consequence of late-night drinking. If the hon. Gentleman will give me time to proceed to the further legislative measures that we are introducing, I hope that he will recognise that the Conservative party was mistaken in its attempt to get rid of the way in which what the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes rightly referred to as an historically unaddressed issueglass bottlescan be dealt with effectively.
	The 2003 Act gives more power than ever before to local licensing authorities to manage premises that are offered licences. It now includes provisions that enable the police to close instantly for up to 24 hours licensed premises where disorder is occurring or is imminent and presents a danger to people there. The police may extend the period of closure until the courts can take responsibility for the matter. The courts may further extend the period of closure until the licence has been reviewed by the licensing authority.
	Following a review hearing, the licensing authority is given substantial powers to act where it is necessary to promote the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. For example, it may add new conditions to the licence, such as requiring a ban on the sale of alcohol in bottles and on the removal from the premises of bottles and open vessels, such as beer glasses, and requiring alcohol to be served in plastic containers or toughened glass. Such conditions might apply at certain times of the day or on certain days of the week. They are all included as possible conditions in the guidance that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issued to licensing authorities, with the approval of Parliament, in July 2004.
	Local licensing authorities can decide to add conditions to new or varied licences. Virtually all premises that have sought variations to the licences during the transitional period between the old and the new licensing regimes have had new conditions attached to their licences that have often been promoted by the police. Again, the conditions have drawn on the guidance issued by the Secretary of State as appropriate and necessary.
	If licence conditions are breached following a review, the licensing authorities have strong powers to suspend licences for between one day and three months, or to revoke a licence permanently. Premises licence holders may also be prosecuted for breaching their licence conditions and can face sentences of a fine not exceeding 20,000, or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. The Licensing Act 2003 gives local authorities the power to target premises that have problems with alcohol-related violent crime and disorder and to attach conditions to their licences.
	I believe that those tools are important and that the introduction of a blanket ban through primary legislation would be disproportionate for areas that do not require such action. Nevertheless, we have toughened the regime that is available to deal with glass being used as a weapon as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence.
	The Violent Crime Reduction Bill builds on the foundation that I have described. In January 2005, the   Government published a consultation paper, Drinking Responsibly: The Government's Proposals. It set out several proposals for helping to tackle the problems of alcohol misuse, including plans for introducing drinking banning orders and powers for local authorities and the police to designate alcohol disorder zones and to charge licensed premises for the cost of dealing with alcohol-related crime and disorder. Drinking banning orders will bar people who have too much to drink and then commit crime or behave in a disorderly manner from licensed premises within a certain locality for a period between two months and two years.
	On 8 June, we introduced the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. The Bill completed its proceedings on Report and Third Reading this weekon 14 November 2005. The Bill includes a comprehensive package of measures that are aimed at combating violent crime, of which the proposals to deal with alcohol-fuelled violent crime are part.
	I would like to highlight one of the new powers in particular because I believe that it is relevant to the issues that the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes raised. There will be a new police power to require an expedited review of an alcohol licence. An expedited review is a mechanism by which the police can apply to the local licensing authority for the review of a premises licence if premises are associated with serious crime or disorder. Let us make no mistake: an incident of someone being stabbed in the face with a glass or a bottle amounts to serious crime or disorder.
	The process allows interim steps pending a review to be taken against premises within 48 hours of the receipt of an application. The licensing authority must undertake to review the licence within 28 days of receipt of the application. Interim steps can include attaching conditions to the licence, such as the need to use plastic vessels or toughened glass. Although it is possible for the police to apply for licence reviews under the Licensing Act, the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will allow the police to make a rapid response to tackle serious crime and disorder. The measure will be a vital tool for the police and licensing authorities throughout the country when dealing with alcohol-related violent crime and disorder.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of the industry. It has a vital role to play in minimising the risks of alcohol misuse. In individual establishments, there is a wide range of steps that can usefully be taken to minimise the risk of such injuries, including educating customers, licensees and staff about the possible dangers arising from the careless use of glass, ensuring that bar staff are diligent in collecting empty bottles and glasses, thus reducing the possibility of accidental harm, and ensuring that licensees and door staff keep a tight rein on their bottles and glasses and prevent them from being removed so that they cannot cause injury or other problems to people leaving the premises.
	I am pleased with the efforts made by the drinks industry to promote the use of toughened glass in pubs and clubs. The industry estimates that between 80 and 90 per cent. of pubs and clubs use toughened glass as a standard. It is pleasing that brewers are now beginning to use bottles that are made of toughened plasticthe hon. Gentleman referred to the work of Coors in that regard. In addition, there is an important role for local authorities to play in helping to manage the night-time economy. That includes ensuring that sufficient secure bottle banks are provided in the right locations and emptied regularly to provide a safe place for bottles to be disposed of when, for example, they are confiscated by the police. That helps to reduce the risk of bottles being used as weapons.
	I acknowledge that the problems of alcohol misuse are especially present on the streets. Responsibility for ending the binge-drinking culture lies with the individual as much as, if not more than, it lies with the industry and licensed premises. Extensive use has been made of the fixed penalty notice for disorder scheme for alcohol-related offences, and a range of other tools have been used to tackle problems of alcohol misuse in the public space.
	As I said, through the Violent Crime Reduction Bill we are introducing a new civil ordera drinking banning orderwhich will be available to the courts to use to protect people and their property from criminal or disorderly conduct by an individual when under the influence of alcohol. The Bill also provides new powers for the police and local authorities to designate alcohol disorder zones as a last resort where other methods have been tried to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder but have not worked. That will enable the police and local authorities to require licensed premises to undertake measures to prevent alcohol-related violence, including the use of toughened glass and plastic bottles, and to charge for individual enforcement services. The measures in the Bill will complement
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

Marketing of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Maize

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12197/05, draft Council Decision authorising the placing on the market of foods and food ingredients from genetically modified maize line MON863 as novel foods or novel food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97; and supports the Government's view that products derived from this maize meet the necessary requirements for authorisation under Regulation (EC) No. 258/97.
	The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 73.

Question accordingly agreed to.